Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Early Authentication Problem Statement
draft-ietf-hokey-preauth-ps-12

(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?

The document shepherd for draft-ietf-hokey-preauth-ps-09 is Tina Tsou . I believe this document is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication. I have identified a number of minor editorial improvements that could be made, but since the document has completed WGLC these can be dealt with as part of the IETF Last Cal! l process 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 been well-reviewed by key WG members. The fact that the post-compromise version of the document (see 1.e) was carefully scrutinized and reworked for two more versions is evidence of the WG's continuing commitment to its success.

(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 concerns.

! ;(1.d) Do have any specific concerns or
      issues 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. 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
  ! ; &n s issue.

No concerns. No IPR disclosure.

(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?

Some of the content led to a four-month controversy because some members felt it was inappropriate given the document title. The controversy was settled with the assistance of the Area Director at the March, 2009 meeting, with an agreement on alternative terminology so that the phrase "EAP preauthentication" retained a specific meaning within the broader category of "early authentication". The Working Group subsequently demonstrated a solid consensus behind this compromise on the list.

(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
&! nbsp;&nbs ;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
      entered into the ID Tracker.)

No.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
      document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
      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 a! nd URI ty /Datatracker finds no issues. No additional reviews applicable to this document.

(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].

Split as required. No down-references.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that t! he docume bsp;    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 [RFC5226]. If the
      document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
      conferred with the Responsible Area Di! rector so nbsp;    can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

Not applicable (section exists with no requirements).

(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 p; Technical Summary
      Extensible Authentication Protocol early authentication may be
      defined as the use of EAP by a mobile device to establish
      authenticated keying material on a target attachment point prior to
      its arrival.  This draft discusses the EAP early authentication
      problem in detail.


    Working Group Summary
      The Working Group experienced major controversy over the inclusion of
      what was eventually termed the "Authenticated Anticipatory Keying Usage
      Model" within the document. This controversy was resolved by changing
      the document! title to n between the new model
      and "EAP preauthentication", reserving the latter term for a very
      specific architectural arrangement..

    Document Quality
      The document is a problem statement and as such, lays the groundwork for
      development of solutions to the identified problems.