TLS-Based Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Types for Use with TLS 1.3
draft-ietf-emu-tls-eap-types-13

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work put into this document. I have no specific comments on the content itself, I just want to thank two people:

Special thanks to Joe Salowey for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus **and** the justification of the intended status.

Other thanks to Bob Halley, the Internet directorate reviewer (at my request), please consider this int-dir review:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/MVqh2NfY86uJ8RZzFu5D0iEGGMw (and I have seen that Alan has already replied)

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

[Ballot comment]
In Section 2.1:

  Which define Master Session Key (MSK) and Extended Master Session Key
  (EMSK).

This seems to be part of a larger sentence that's partly missing.

  It is RECOMMENDED that vendor-defined TLS-based EAP methods use the
  above definitions for TLS 1.3.  There is no compelling reason to use
  different definitions.

Why isn't this MUST if there's no compelling reason to do otherwise?

I concur with Roman's comment about the SHOULD NOT in Section 2.4.

In Section 2.2:

  Where || denotes concatenation.

I understand the earlier citation I made above now, but still this should be a complete sentence.  You later have:

  where CMK[n] is taken from the final ("n"th) inner method.

...which is better in that it looks more like a continuation of something, but still it could be better.  Suggest:

  In this context, CMK[n] is taken from the final ("n"th) inner method.

In Section 3.1:

In other weds, [...]

I think you meant "words".

  The outer identity SHOULD use an anonymous NAI realm.  [...]

I suggest you add a sentence or two explaining why an implementer might legitimately choose not to do this.

  This practice is NOT RECOMMENDED.  User accounts for an organization
  should be qualified as belonging to that organization, and not to an
  unrelated third party.  There is no reason to tie the configuration
  of user systems to public realm routing, that configuration more
  properly belongs in the network.

This formulation is curious; you first give implementers an "out" with NOT RECOMMENDED, and then basically argue that it should be a MUST NOT.  I suggest revisiting this pattern anywhere you've used it.  If you prefer to keep it, I suggest changing the prose a bit to explain why one might choose to deviate from the advice presented.

Thanks for including Section 5.

In Section 6.1:

  There MAY be
  additional protocol exchanges which could still cause failure, so we
  cannot mandate sending success on successful authentication.

This should just be "may", not "MAY".  You're not presenting an implementation choice.

[Ballot comment]
** Thank you to Melinda Shore for the SECDIR review.

** Section 2.4
  It is therefore RECOMMENDED that EAP servers always send a TLS
  NewSessionTicket message, even if resumption is not configured.  When
  the EAP peer attempts to use the ticket, the EAP server can instead
  request a full authentication.  Implementations SHOULD NOT send
  NewSessionTicket messages until the "inner tunnel" authentication has
  completed, in order to take full advantage of the message as a
  protected success indication.

It is my understanding that this SHOULD NOT is based in implementation realities.  Can text be added to establish the basis for this not being “MUST NOT”.  Please also add cross-references as appropriate into the document on the same topic.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this document. I have a few questions and comments I hope may be of use.

### Section 3

```
  Earlier TLS versions did not always send application data along with
  the Finished message.  It was then possible for implementations to
  assume that a receipt of a Finished message also meant that there was
  no application data available, and that another round trip was
  required.
```

This doesn’t quite make sense to me as written. Do you mean that earlier TLS versions always did not send application data along with the Finished message? Note the significant movement of the word "always". The way it’s written right now, "did not always" implies earlier TLS implementations "sometimes did" send application data along with the Finished message, and if that was the case, I don’t see how (non-buggy) implementations could make the assumption you note.


### Section 4

```
  As the packet flows for resumption are essentially identical across
  all TLS-based EAP types, it is technically possible to authenticate
  using EAP-TLS (Type 13), and then perform resumption using another
  EAP type, just as EAP-TTLS (Type 21).
```

Is “just as” in the last line, supposed to be “such as“? If “just as“ is correct, I don’t understand what’s intended.


### Section 6.1

```
  Similarly, when the inner authentication protocol indicates that
  authentication has succeeded, then implementations SHOULD cause
  authentication to succeed for the entire session.  There MAY be
  additional protocol exchanges in order which could cause other
  failures, so success is not required here.
```

That last sentence doesn’t make much sense to me. I am guessing what you mean is something like, “The reason success is not mandatory but only recommended in this case is that we cannot preclude that an inner protocol might have semantics such that authentication can succeed but the overall exchange still can fail.”

Feel free to use those words if they make sense, or not, but as the text stands I had difficulty so I suggest some kind of clarification. At a minimum, it appears to me that the words “in order” should be removed?

[Ballot comment]
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-emu-tls-eap-types-11

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Thomas Fossati for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/fNZOEID38s07l1DnsrSiqNpoXBc).

## Comments

### Boilerplate

Document boilerplate does not indicate intended status?

TLP Section 6.a "Submission Compliance for Internet-Drafts" boilerplate text
seems to have issues.

I-D Guidelines boilerplate text seems to have issues.

TLP Section 6.b "Copyright and License Notice" boilerplate text seems to have
issues.

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Boilerplate

Document still refers to the "Simplified BSD License", which was corrected in
the TLP on September 21, 2021. It should instead refer to the "Revised BSD
License".

### Grammar/style

#### Section 2.3, paragraph 5
```
llenge = TLS-Exporter("ttls challenge",, n) There is no "context_value" ([RFC
                                      ^^
```
Two consecutive commas.

#### Section 3.1, paragraph 8
```
tity can then be fully qualified: user name plus realm of the organization.
                                  ^^^^^^^^^
```
It's more common nowadays to write this noun as one word.

#### Section 4, paragraph 2
```
e implemented and tested to be inter-operable with wpa_supplicant 2.10 and W
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
This word is normally spelled as one.

#### Section 6.1, paragraph 8
```
e Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March, 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/inf
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^
```
When specifying a month and year, the comma is unnecessary.

#### Section 6.1, paragraph 9
```
0, May 2014. [RFC8126] Cotton, M., et al, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Co
                                  ^^^^^
```
A period is misplaced or missing. (Should be "et al."; also elsewhere.)

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-emu-tls-eap-types-10. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator has a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

In the TLS Exporter Labels registry on the Transport Layer Security (TLS) Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-parameters/

Value: EXPORTER: teap session key seed
DTLS-OK: N
Recommended: Y
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Note: Only to be used for TEAP

Value: EXPORTER: Inner Methods Compound Keys
DTLS-OK: N
Recommended: Y
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Note: Only to be used for TEAP

Value: EXPORTER: Session Key Generating Function
DTLS-OK: N
Recommended: Y
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Note: Only to be used for TEAP

Value: EXPORTER: Extended Session Key Generating Function
DTLS-OK: N
Recommended: Y
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Note: Only to be used for TEAP

As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

IANA Question -> is the string "TEAPbindkey@ietf.org" intended as an Exporter Label?

The IANA Functions Operator understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-01-27):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-emu-tls-eap-types@ietf.org, emu-chairs@ietf.org, emu@ietf.org, jsalowey@gmail.com, paul.wouters@aiven.io
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (TLS-based EAP types and TLS 1.3) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the EAP Method Update WG (emu) to
consider the following document: - 'TLS-based EAP types and TLS 1.3'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2023-01-27. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract

  EAP-TLS (RFC 5216) has been updated for TLS 1.3 in RFC 9190.  Many
  other EAP types also depend on TLS, such as EAP-FAST (RFC 4851), EAP-
  TTLS (RFC 5281), TEAP (RFC 7170), and possibly many vendor specific
  EAP methods.  This document updates those methods in order to use the
  new key derivation methods available in TLS 1.3.  Additional changes
  necessitated by TLS 1.3 are also discussed.


The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-emu-tls-eap-types/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

This document reflects strong consensus from members of the working group interested in TLS EAP types. 

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

Consensus was in general strong. There are areas where there is less implementation experience, but no objection to moving forward.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No extreme discontent

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

A number of vendors are looking to implement this specification. There have already been interoperable implementations for most of the methods in the document.  EAP-FAST and TEAP are a little behind in implementation. 

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

This document is built on TLS.  It does not modify TLS, but it uses existing TLS interfaces. Members of the TLS WG have reviewed this document. 

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

NA

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

NA

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

NA

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

YES

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

The security area issues list has been reviewed by the shepherd. The document has not yet been reviewed by the security area directorate.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The document is requesting publication as a proposed standard. It updates both information and standards track documents (RFC 7170 - TEAP)

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

No IPR disclosures have been made for this document.  No one has raised any questions about IPR.


13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes, there is only one author

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

The draft has been reviewed for nits.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

The informative and normative references look appropriate.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

All the normative references are freely available

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

The document updates, but does not change the state of any existing RFCs.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The document just adds values to existing registry for TLS exporter labels. 

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

No new registries.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

This document reflects strong consensus from members of the working group interested in TLS EAP types. 

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

Consensus was in general strong. There are areas where there is less implementation experience, but no objection to moving forward.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No extreme discontent

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

A number of vendors are looking to implement this specification. There have already been interoperable implementations for most of the methods in the document.  EAP-FAST and TEAP are a little behind in implementation. 

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

This document is built on TLS.  It does not modify TLS, but it uses existing TLS interfaces. Members of the TLS WG have reviewed this document. 

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

NA

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

NA

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

NA

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

YES

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

The security area issues list has been reviewed by the shepherd. The document has not yet been reviewed by the security area directorate.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The document is requesting publication as a proposed standard. It updates both information and standards track documents (RFC 7170 - TEAP)

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

No IPR disclosures have been made for this document.  No one has raised any questions about IPR.


13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes, there is only one author

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

The draft has been reviewed for nits.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

The informative and normative references look appropriate.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

All the normative references are freely available

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

The document updates, but does not change the state of any existing RFCs.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The document just adds values to existing registry for TLS exporter labels. 

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

No new registries.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

This document reflects strong consensus from members of the working group interested in TLS types. 

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

Consensus was in general strong. There are areas where there is less implementation experience, but no objection to moving forward.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No extreme discontent

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

A number of vendors are looking to implement this specification. There have already been interoperable implementations for most of the methods in the document.  EAP-FAST and TEAP are a little behind in implementation. 

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

This document is built on TLS.  It does not modify TLS, but it uses existing TLS interfaces. Members of the TLS WG have reviewed this document. 

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

NA

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

NA

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

NA

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

YES

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

The security area issues, list has been reviewed by the shepherd. The document has not yet been reviewed by the security area directorate.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The document is requesting publication as a proposed standard. It updates both information and standards track documents (RFC 7170 - TEAP)

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

No IPR disclosures have been made for this document.  No one has raised any questions about IPR.


13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes, there is only one author

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

The draft has been reviewed for nits.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

The informative and normative references look appropriate.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

All the normative references are freely available

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

The document updates, but does not change the state of any existing RFCs.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The document just adds values to existing registry for TLS exporter labels. 

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

No new registries.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

This document reflects strong consensus from members of the working group interested in TLS types. 

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

Consensus was in general strong. There are areas where there is less implementation experience, but no objection to moving forward.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

A number of vendors are looking to implement this specification. There have already been interoperable implementations for most of the methods in the document.  EAP-FAST and TEAP are a little behind in implementation. 

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

This document is built on TLS.  It does not modify TLS, but it uses existing TLS interfaces. Members of the TLS WG have reviewed this document. 

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

NA

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

NA

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

NA

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

YES

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

The security area issues, list has been reviewed by the shepherd. The document has not yet been reviewed by the security area directorate.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

No IPR has been disclosed.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/