As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
(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?
Informational as indicated in the page header
(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:
This memo describes an architecture that makes use of extensions to
the commonly used security mechanisms for both federated and non-
federated access management, including the Remote Authentication Dial
In User Service (RADIUS) and the Diameter protocol, the Generic
Security Service (GSS), the Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)
and the Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML). The architecture
addresses the problem of federated access management to primarily
non-web-based services, in a manner that will scale to large numbers
of identity providers, relying parties, and federations.
Working Group Summary
The WG process, although it took some time, hasn't been particularly contentious.
Instead there has been a lot of feedback from the core spec work and this
specification which has necessarily delayed the work a bit.
This is an informational document that describes abfab architecture. The abfab suite
of protocols has been implemented once by the moonshot project. Afaik there are no
other implementations but the night is young.
The work of Jim Schaad in particular has been excellent. His thoroughness
and dedication to quality has meant a lot for getting this document done.
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
The document shepherded is Leif Johansson (WG chair).
The responsible AD is Stephen Farrell.
(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
There has been 2 WGLCs on this document - the first generated a few comments
that were resolved by the WG. I reviewed this document and believe it is ready for
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
(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
It would be useful to get a security review of this document during the IESG
(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
I have no such 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.
I have no reason to believe any IPR covers this document since no IPR covers core
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
(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 relatively small core of active participants. Among those the
consensus is strong.
(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.)
(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
Nits look fine.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
Yes, the reference section is in the standard 2-part form.
(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?
There are 4:
Hartman, S. and J. Howlett, "A GSS-API Mechanism for the
Extensible Authentication Protocol", draft-ietf-abfab-gss-
eap-09 (work in progress), August 2012.
This document is in AUTH48
Howlett, J. and S. Hartman, "A RADIUS Attribute, Binding,
Profiles, Name Identifier Format, and Confirmation Methods
for SAML", draft-ietf-abfab-aaa-saml-05 (work in
progress), February 2013.
This document is nearing completion in the abfab WG
DeKok, A., "The Network Access Identifier", draft-ietf-
radext-nai-02 (work in progress), January 2013.
DeKok, A., "DTLS as a Transport Layer for RADIUS", draft-
ietf-radext-dtls-07 (work in progress), October 2013.
These documents are in WG Last Call in RADEXT.
(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.
(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.
(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).
No IANA requirements
(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.
No IANA requirements
(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.
No such sections exist