(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?
(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:
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
This document defines protocols, procedures, and conventions to be
employed by peers implementing the Generic Security Service
Application Program Interface (GSS-API) when using the EAP mechanism.
Through the GS2 family of mechanisms, these protocols also define how
Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL, RFC 4422)
applications use the Extensible Authentication Protocol.
Working Group Summary
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
example, was there controversy about particular points or
were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
As "usual" with I-Ds with lots of technical content in the security
area (especially true for GSS-related stuff) there are fewer reviews
than one might want. This document is no better or worse than most
in this respect.
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
review, on what date was the request posted?
There is one implementation (moonshot project) that spans multiple
platforms. To our knowledge no other implementations exists or are
planned. The one implementation has seen quite a bit of testing
though expecially for the GSS-layer since lots of opensource
applications have been modified to support ABFAB/GSS-EAP using moonshot.
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Leif Johansson is sheparding (co-chair)
Stephen Farrell (AD)
(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
The document was reviewed by Leif Johansson. The document is ready
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
A thorough security review from the secdir would be nice but make
sure to get somebody that isn't already involved in the work.
(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
AAA-doctors review would be useful
(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
There are a couple of references that probably should be normative
rather than informative, notably some of the IANA-related drafts
mentioned below. These are relatively miinor nits imo.
(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.
We have explicitly asked and confirmed that that there are no IPR claims.
(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 consensus seems solid and fairly un-controversial.
(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
(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?
- draft-ietf-emu-chbind (normative - one of the authors of gss-eap is co-author of emu-chbind)
- draft-abfab-arch (informative)
in ABFAB being actively worked on by the WG
the author is sheparding this document so it is probably a "safe" dependency.
the dependency is optional but normative if used (cf section 7.4)
(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).
The document establishes a number of IANA registries. One such registry
(the RFC4121 token identifiers registry in section 7.2) which depends on
the timely creation of a "Kerberos V GSS-API Mechanism Parameters" registry
under which this registry is subordinate.
The document also includes a radius attribute assignment which must be
acted on by IANA where there is a normative dependency on
Finally there is a registration of a GSS-EAP SASL mech for a specific
(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.
- RFC4121 token identifiers (section 7.2)
- GSS EAP Subtoken Types (section 7.3)
Suggested experts include, Sam Hartmans, Nico Williams, Simon Josefsson,
Rhys Smith, Alexey Melnikov
(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.
- validated GSSAPI-Token PDU at http://asn1-playground.oss.com/ for syntax
- validated mech name ABNF against http://www.apps.ietf.org/content/chris-newmans-abnf-validator