Update to the Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Applicability Statement for Application Bridging for Federated Access Beyond Web (ABFAB)
RFC 7057

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>,
    abfab mailing list <abfab@ietf.org>,
    abfab chair <abfab-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Update to the EAP Applicability Statement for ABFAB' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-abfab-eapapplicability-06.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Update to the EAP Applicability Statement for ABFAB'
  (draft-ietf-abfab-eapapplicability-06.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Application Bridging for Federated
Access Beyond web Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Stephen Farrell and Sean Turner.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-abfab-eapapplicability/

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   The EAP applicability statement in [RFC3748] defines the scope of the
   Extensible Authentication Protocol to be "for use in network access
   authentication, where IP layer connectivity may not be available.",
   and states that "Use of EAP for other purposes, such as bulk data
   transport, is NOT RECOMMENDED.".

   While some of the recommendation against usage of EAP for bulk data
   transport is still valid, some of the other provisions in the
   applicability statement have turned out to be too narrow.  This document 
   describes the applicability of EAP for (certain) application layer access decisions.

Working Group Summary

  The WG (as well as emu) has debated extensively as to whether to revise the 
  EAP-applicability statement completely or to focus on the particular requirements for 
  abfab. It was decided to keep it limited to abfab in the interest of progressing the 
  work items.

Document Quality

 This being an applicability statement, there is no question of implementations. What 
  can be said is that the existing implementations of abfab use the relaxed applicability 
  statement.

Personnel

Shepherd: Klaas Wierenga
AD: Stephen Farell


RFC Editor Note

Please add a new sentence to the end of section 3 (and the associated 
informative reference), so:

OLD, at the end of section 3:

                        Circumstances might	
			require that applications need to perform conversion of identities	
			from an application specific character set to UTF-8 or another	
			character set required by a particular EAP method.

NEW
                         Circumstances might	
			require that applications need to perform conversion of identities	
			from an application specific character set to UTF-8 or another	
			character set required by a particular EAP method.
                        See also [draft-ietf-radext-nai], Section 2.6, for information 
                        about normalization of identifiers.

NEW, section 7.2:

Add [draft-ietf-radext-nai]

RFC Editor Note