PT-EAP: Posture Transport (PT) Protocol for Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Tunnel Methods
draft-ietf-nea-pt-eap-09

[Ballot discuss]
Trying to piece together RFC 6677, draft-ietf-emu-eap-tunnel-method, and this draft and if we walk through c.10 in draft-ietf-emu-eap-tunnel-method the inner method is bound to the outer method (good): first you set up an EAP tunnel, then you set up a TLS session, and then you do what's in this draft and pass the channel bindings TLV from ietf-emu-eap-tunnel-method.  One question though: The Channel_Binding TLV data field points to RFC6677 (s5.3), the only values specified there supports a RADIUS namespace.  Doesn't a new namespace need to be defined to carry the tls-unique value?  I.e., isn't it going to be an octet string and not a RADIUS attribute?

[Ballot comment]
1) s2: Word smithing, but I would have called s2 "Applicability Statement".  Did Pete beat me to this one ;)

2) s3: This document is at the interesting cross-roads of EAP [RFC6677] and TLS [RFC5056][RFC5929] which use the term "channel binding" differently.  To aid those who might not know they're used differently, it's probably worth pointing out that you're using the 5056 meaning here.

3) s4.3: So I'm probably word smithing here but doesn't this:

  TEAP [I-D.ietf-emu-eap-tunnel-method] is the mandatory to implement
  EAP tunnel method.

mean:

  Implementations MUST support the [I-D.ietf-emu-eap-tunnel-method]
  EAP tunnel method.

4) s4.3: After s4.2, I would have thought that you'd make the point that of the 3 methods only [I-D.ietf-emu-eap-tunnel-method] actually claims to support channel bindings.

5) s4/5/?: Is it worth explicitly noting that if channel bindings is implemented then the Channel-Binding TLV in [I-D.ietf-emu-eap-tunnel-method] MUST be supported.

[Ballot comment]
Section 5:

  The security requirements described in this specification MUST be
  implemented in any product claiming to be PT-EAP compliant.

I couldn't tell *why* a product claiming to be PT-EAP compliant MUST implement the security requirements described in this specification. I think the abobe sentence could mean one of two things:

1. It means, "A product claiming to be PT-EAP compliant implements all of the security requirements described in this specification." That is to say, it's simply describing what it means to be compliant. If that's what is meant, say that; MUST isn't helping anything.

2. It means, "There are security requirements described in this specification that MUST be implemented because they are required for interoperability or to prevent harm." If that's what is meant, please list the particular sections these requirements appear, or list a summary of them here. Saying that I MUST do some things without telling me what specifically I MUST do is not helpful.

[Ballot comment]
-- Section 7 --
  This document also defines one new IANA top-level registry: PT-EAP
  Versions.  This section explains how this registry works.  Because
  only eight (8) values are available in this registry, a high bar is
  set for new assignments.  The only way to register new values in this
  registry is through Standards Action (via an approved Standards Track
  RFC).

Thanks very much for including an explanation of your choice of registration
policy.  I really appreciate that.

I have a very tiny, non-blocking point, of no significance other than tidiness of
the IANA registries.  From IANA's last-call comments:

  Second, a new registry is to be created. This registry will be called
  the "PT-EAP Versions" registry. The document requests that the be a
  top-level registry in the IANA Matrix.

They're referring to the "new IANA top-level registry" bit above.
Is there a good reason for this to have its own group on the main IANA page? 
I suggest this:

There's a group called "TLS-based Posture Transport Protocol (PT-TLS)",
which has the PT-TLS Error Codes and PT-TLS Message Types registries in it. 
Might it be reasonable to rename that group to "Posture Transport Protocols
(PT-EAP and PT-TLS)", and to add this registry to that top-level group?

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-nea-pt-eap-06 and has the following
comments:

ANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two
actions which IANA needs to complete.

First, in the Method Types subregistry of the Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/eap-numbers/eap-numbers.xml#eap-numbers-3

a new method type will be registered as follows:

Value: [ TBD at time of registration ]
Description: EAP Method Type for PT-EAP
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Second, a new registry is to be created. This registry will be called the "PT-EAP Versions" registry. The document requests that the be a top-level registry in the IANA Matrix.

New assignments in the PT-EAP registry are created through Standards Action as defined by RFC 5226. There are initial registrations in this registry as follows:

Value Reference
------ ---------------
0 Reserved
1 [ RFC-to-be ]
2-7 Unassigned

IANA understands these two actions are the only ones 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.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (PT-EAP: Posture Transport (PT) Protocol For EAP Tunnel Methods) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Network Endpoint Assessment WG
(nea) to consider the following document:
- 'PT-EAP: Posture Transport (PT) Protocol For EAP Tunnel Methods'
  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
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-01-16. 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


  This document specifies PT-EAP, an Extensible Authentication Protocol
  (EAP) based Posture Transport (PT) protocol designed to be used only
  inside a TLS protected EAP tunnel method.  The document also
  describes the intended applicability of PT-EAP.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nea-pt-eap/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nea-pt-eap/ballot/


The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1889/

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Proposed Standard is requested and indicated in the header.

PT-EAP defines a transport protocol to carry NEA posture messages between a
NEA client and server as part of network access. Proposed standard is requested
because a transport protocol is needed for interoperability between NEA client
and servers from different vendors.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-
Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples
can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The
approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:
      This document specifies PT-EAP, an EAP-based Posture Transport (PT)
      protocol designed to be used inside a TLS-protected tunnel
      method.  The document also describes the intended applicability of
      PT-EAP.

Working Group Summary:

In the call for proposals for Posture Transport (PT) specifications, there
were two submissions for an EAP-based PT: one using an EAP method
within an EAP tunnel method, and the other using a TLV format within an
EAP tunnel method. Many discussions were had in the WG on the pros and
cons of each approach. No consensus could be reached. Hence, the AD of
the Working Group (Stephen Farrell) made the selection with the
agreement that the WG would abide by the decision. Stephen selected the
EAP method approach in a message to the NEA WG dated 24 Aug 2011
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nea/current/msg01187.html). The
WG then adopted the EAP method proposal as a WG document, and
followed the normal process from there. There is WG consensus to move
this document forward.

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant
number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are
there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough
review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that
the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media
Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a
Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

There are no known vendor implementations of this particular specification,
but there are existing implementations of an EAP method which is similar to
what is currently specified. This document was reviewed by several people
in the EMU WG, and no objections were raised.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Susan Thomson is the Document Shepherd. Stephen Farrell is the Area
Director.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication,
please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

I have reviewed the document and do not have issues with it.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth
of the reviews that have been performed?

No.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader
perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or
internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

As mentioned above, the draft was circulated to the EMU mailing list. Three
people made comments which have been addressed. No significant objections to
the I-D were made at that time.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has
with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be
aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of
the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event,
if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to
advance the document, detail those concerns here.

No concerns.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures
required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have
already been filed. If not, explain why?

Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

Yes (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1889/). The WG has discussed whether to
move forward with the document given the IPR disclosure, and there is consensus
to do so.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the
strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG
as a whole understand and agree with it?

The WG has a thorough understanding of the contents of this document and there
is consensus to move the document forward.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise 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.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
(See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

No issues found.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Not applicable.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative
or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references
exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so,
list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call
procedure.

No downward references.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are
those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in
the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction,
explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this
document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the
document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No.


(17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with
the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA
registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries
include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name
for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

I have reviewed the IANA Considerations, and confirm that the references to
registries are clear, and the contents and policies well-defined.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in
selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

None.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such
as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

Not applicable. The document contains no formal language.