Below is the PROTO write-up for EAP-GPSK. Please let me know if there are any issues with the write-up. I will send EAP-GPSK to the IESG in the next few weeks.
Thanks, Joe ---------- (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? I am the document shepherd for this document and I have personally reviewed the document and believe it is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document has received adequate review from both working group and non WG members. At least one working group member, Jouni Malinen has implemented the specification and provided feedback that has improved the document. In addition the document has received review from researchers from several universities an their feedback has been incorporated. The document has also received some review from NIST. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? No (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document hat 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. The working group had some discussion late in the process over whether an approach using EAP-TLS with TLS-PSK was a better approach. The EAP-GPSK document was preferred because: 1. Implementation experience has shown that EAP-GPSK is easy to implement. 2. EAP-GPSK requires fewer cryptographic primitives than TLS and can be implemented more compactly. 3. Currently EAP-TLS explicitly requires the use of certificates. EAP-GPSK should be able to meet any future EAP channel binding requirements because it defines a mechanism to carry payloads of various types. (1.e) 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 document represents a reasonably strong consensus with most of the active members of the working group in favor of the document moving forward. (1.f) 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 entered into the ID Tracker.) No. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? Yes (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? 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 strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. The document has split references with no downward or dependent references (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? IANA considerations section exists and is consistent with the body of the document. Appropriate registries are requested, identified and populated with initial values. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? Not applicable (1.k) 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 Internet Draft defines an Extensible Authentication Protocol method called EAP Generalized Pre-Shared Key (EAP-GPSK). This method is a lightweight shared-key authentication protocol supporting mutual authentication and key derivation. The method should be able to support any future EAP channel binding requirements. Working Group Summary The base document for EAP-GPSK was originally created by a design team. There was working group consensus to accept the document to meet the Pre-Shared-Key EAP method on the working group charter. Document Quality There is an existing implementation of the protocol. NIST was consulted and participated in the review of the document resulting in some modifications to the key derivation function. The document has been reviewed by external researchers and their feedback has been incorporated. EAP experts within the EMU working group have reviewed the document. This document meets requirements set forth in RF3748, RFC 4017 and the EAP Key Management Framework. Personnel Joe Salowey, the EMU chair, is the document shepherd. The responsible Area Director is Sam Hartman. _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
