(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?
Standards Track. This draft updates RFC3748 that is also Standards Track
(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:
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
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
Shepherd: Klaas Wierenga
AD: Stephen Farell
(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
I have reviewed the document and feel it is ready for publication with one clarification,
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
The document was reviewed by a relatively small set of people. However, given the
composition of that group, with subject matter experts from emu, abfab, kitten and
radext, I believe that the depth was sufficient.
(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
(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
No concern. The only relevant issue that came up in WGLC is that the fact that this
document updates RFC3748 should be stated more explicitly in abstract and headers, but
that can be handled in IETF last call.
(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.
(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 as a whole largely agrees to the content this document, however some would have
liked a more far reaching update of EAP-applicability and we reached consensus that that
could be handled in another forum as it was not specific to abfab.
(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
Only nit is the age of the document (44 days), that is due to the time it took the
chairs to issue WGLC
(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?
(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?
(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.
yes, RFC3748. See text above, headers and abstract need to be updated.
(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).
(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.
(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.