Improved Extensible Authentication Protocol Method for 3rd Generation Authentication and Key Agreement (EAP-AKA')
draft-arkko-eap-aka-kdf-10

[Ballot discuss]
The authors indicate that some last minute coordination with 3GPP is needed.
  I expect this coordination to take place between now and November 7th.  If
  the coordination shows that no document changes are needed, then I will simply
  clear.  Holding this DISCUSS position will ensure that this document is not
  approved until that coordination has taken place.

IANA Last Call comments:

Action 1:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
assignments in the "Method Types" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/eap-numbers

Value Description Reference
-------------- ------------------------------------- ---------
[TBD] EAP_AKA' [RFC-arkko-eap-aka-kdf-05]


Action 2:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
assignments in the "Attribute Types" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/eapsimaka-numbers


Value Description Reference
-------- ------------------------------------- ------------------
Non-Skippable Attributes
[TBD] AT_KDF_INPUT [RFC-arkko-eap-aka-kdf-05]
[TBD] AT_KDF [RFC-arkko-eap-aka-kdf-05]
[TBD] AT_BIDDING [RFC-arkko-eap-aka-kdf-05]


Action 3:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will create the
registry "EAP-AKA' KDF Type Values" at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD

Registration Procedures: Specification Required
Initial contents of this registry will be:

Value Description Reference
--------- ---------------------- ---------------
0 Reserved [RFC-arkko-eap-aka-kdf-05]
1 EAP-AKA with CK/IK [RFC-arkko-eap-aka-kdf-05]
2 EAP-AKA' with CK'/IK' [RFC-arkko-eap-aka-kdf-05]
3-65535 Unassigned [RFC-arkko-eap-aka-kdf-05]


We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this document.

Here's the writeup:

(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?

There is no document shepherd. But the authors have re-reviewed the specification and they believe it is ready to move forward.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key members of the interested community and others? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

The document has been posted for review in the SA3 group in 3GPP, and it has received there a number of reviews. Issues from all of those reviews have been addressed. No review on IETF lists have been performed to date, but we expect that during Last Call both EMU and IETF main lists will provide some reviews.

(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?

It obviously needs security review as a part of the AD review and IETF Last Call processes. In addition, an EAP Type Code Expert review should be initiated.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd 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 interested community has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

n.a.

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

Our belief is that most of the interested parties are behind this, e.g., the key companies producing equipment for this as well as the 3GPP SA3 group. It has to be said that earlier in the process, there were individuals who were championing for mere change of the key derivation rules without any update of the RFC. They still want to do this, if the draft cannot be approved in a timely manner (December 2008 is the current release deadline for the 3GPP specifications).

(1.f) 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 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. There is one spurious warning about RFC 2119 language template, but that seems to be either incorrect or there some subtle formatting difference in the standard text that we use.

(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 references are split appropriately. There are two references that are still under progress in 3GPP; the intention is to progress these and the RFC at the same time.

(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 suggested a reasonable name for the new registry? See [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]. 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?

All of this should be OK.

(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?

There is no formal language.

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

Technical Summary

  This specification defines a new EAP method, EAP-AKA', a small
  revision of the EAP-AKA method.  The change is a new key derivation
  function that binds the keys derived within the method to the name of
  the access network.  The new key derivation mechanism has been
  defined in 3GPP.  This specification allows its use in EAP in an
  interoperable manner.  In addition, EAP-AKA' employs SHA-256 instead
  of SHA-1.

Working Group Summary

  This is an individual submission, but has been discussed in 3GPP SA3
  group.

Document Quality

  Several reviews have been obtained.