TLS-Based Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Types for Use with TLS 1.3
draft-ietf-emu-tls-eap-types-13
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2023-06-15
|
13 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2023-06-09
|
13 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 |
2023-04-12
|
13 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2023-04-09
|
13 | Barry Leiba | Closed request for Last Call review by ARTART with state 'Overtaken by Events': Document has finished IESG processing |
2023-04-09
|
13 | Barry Leiba | Assignment of request for Last Call review by ARTART to Joseph Yee was marked no-response |
2023-02-22
|
13 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2023-02-22
|
13 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2023-02-22
|
13 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2023-02-21
|
13 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2023-02-21
|
13 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2023-02-21
|
13 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2023-02-21
|
13 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2023-02-21
|
13 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2023-02-21
|
13 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2023-02-21
|
13 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2023-02-21
|
13 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2023-02-21
|
13 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2023-02-21
|
13 | Paul Wouters | All comments were addressed. Note the double comma ",," that was brought up is the correct syntax (for one parameter not being used) |
2023-02-21
|
13 | Paul Wouters | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2023-02-16
|
13 | Alan DeKok | New version available: draft-ietf-emu-tls-eap-types-13.txt |
2023-02-16
|
13 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-02-16
|
13 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alan DeKok |
2023-02-16
|
13 | Alan DeKok | Uploaded new revision |
2023-02-16
|
12 | (System) | Removed all action holders (IESG state changed) |
2023-02-16
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation |
2023-02-16
|
12 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot comment] Thanks for spending the time to write this specification to improve security, and thanks to Juergen for the OPSDIR review. |
2023-02-16
|
12 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Wilton |
2023-02-16
|
12 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot comment] Thank you for the work put into this document. I have no specific comments on the content itself, I just want to thank … [Ballot comment] Thank you for the work put into this document. I have no specific comments on the content itself, I just want to thank two people: Special thanks to Joe Salowey for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus **and** the justification of the intended status. Other thanks to Bob Halley, the Internet directorate reviewer (at my request), please consider this int-dir review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/MVqh2NfY86uJ8RZzFu5D0iEGGMw (and I have seen that Alan has already replied) I hope that this review helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric |
2023-02-16
|
12 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke |
2023-02-15
|
12 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot comment] In Section 2.1: Which define Master Session Key (MSK) and Extended Master Session Key (EMSK). This seems to be part of … [Ballot comment] In Section 2.1: Which define Master Session Key (MSK) and Extended Master Session Key (EMSK). This seems to be part of a larger sentence that's partly missing. It is RECOMMENDED that vendor-defined TLS-based EAP methods use the above definitions for TLS 1.3. There is no compelling reason to use different definitions. Why isn't this MUST if there's no compelling reason to do otherwise? I concur with Roman's comment about the SHOULD NOT in Section 2.4. In Section 2.2: Where || denotes concatenation. I understand the earlier citation I made above now, but still this should be a complete sentence. You later have: where CMK[n] is taken from the final ("n"th) inner method. ...which is better in that it looks more like a continuation of something, but still it could be better. Suggest: In this context, CMK[n] is taken from the final ("n"th) inner method. In Section 3.1: In other weds, [...] I think you meant "words". The outer identity SHOULD use an anonymous NAI realm. [...] I suggest you add a sentence or two explaining why an implementer might legitimately choose not to do this. This practice is NOT RECOMMENDED. User accounts for an organization should be qualified as belonging to that organization, and not to an unrelated third party. There is no reason to tie the configuration of user systems to public realm routing, that configuration more properly belongs in the network. This formulation is curious; you first give implementers an "out" with NOT RECOMMENDED, and then basically argue that it should be a MUST NOT. I suggest revisiting this pattern anywhere you've used it. If you prefer to keep it, I suggest changing the prose a bit to explain why one might choose to deviate from the advice presented. Thanks for including Section 5. In Section 6.1: There MAY be additional protocol exchanges which could still cause failure, so we cannot mandate sending success on successful authentication. This should just be "may", not "MAY". You're not presenting an implementation choice. |
2023-02-15
|
12 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy |
2023-02-15
|
12 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] ** Thank you to Melinda Shore for the SECDIR review. ** Section 2.4 It is therefore RECOMMENDED that EAP servers always send … [Ballot comment] ** Thank you to Melinda Shore for the SECDIR review. ** Section 2.4 It is therefore RECOMMENDED that EAP servers always send a TLS NewSessionTicket message, even if resumption is not configured. When the EAP peer attempts to use the ticket, the EAP server can instead request a full authentication. Implementations SHOULD NOT send NewSessionTicket messages until the "inner tunnel" authentication has completed, in order to take full advantage of the message as a protected success indication. It is my understanding that this SHOULD NOT is based in implementation realities. Can text be added to establish the basis for this not being “MUST NOT”. Please also add cross-references as appropriate into the document on the same topic. |
2023-02-15
|
12 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2023-02-15
|
12 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2023-02-15
|
12 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2023-02-15
|
12 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2023-02-15
|
12 | Alan DeKok | New version available: draft-ietf-emu-tls-eap-types-12.txt |
2023-02-15
|
12 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-02-15
|
12 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alan DeKok |
2023-02-15
|
12 | Alan DeKok | Uploaded new revision |
2023-02-15
|
11 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | [Ballot comment] Thanks for working on this specification. |
2023-02-15
|
11 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker |
2023-02-14
|
11 | John Scudder | [Ballot comment] Thanks for this document. I have a few questions and comments I hope may be of use. ### Section 3 ``` Earlier … [Ballot comment] Thanks for this document. I have a few questions and comments I hope may be of use. ### Section 3 ``` Earlier TLS versions did not always send application data along with the Finished message. It was then possible for implementations to assume that a receipt of a Finished message also meant that there was no application data available, and that another round trip was required. ``` This doesn’t quite make sense to me as written. Do you mean that earlier TLS versions always did not send application data along with the Finished message? Note the significant movement of the word "always". The way it’s written right now, "did not always" implies earlier TLS implementations "sometimes did" send application data along with the Finished message, and if that was the case, I don’t see how (non-buggy) implementations could make the assumption you note. ### Section 4 ``` As the packet flows for resumption are essentially identical across all TLS-based EAP types, it is technically possible to authenticate using EAP-TLS (Type 13), and then perform resumption using another EAP type, just as EAP-TTLS (Type 21). ``` Is “just as” in the last line, supposed to be “such as“? If “just as“ is correct, I don’t understand what’s intended. ### Section 6.1 ``` Similarly, when the inner authentication protocol indicates that authentication has succeeded, then implementations SHOULD cause authentication to succeed for the entire session. There MAY be additional protocol exchanges in order which could cause other failures, so success is not required here. ``` That last sentence doesn’t make much sense to me. I am guessing what you mean is something like, “The reason success is not mandatory but only recommended in this case is that we cannot preclude that an inner protocol might have semantics such that authentication can succeed but the overall exchange still can fail.” Feel free to use those words if they make sense, or not, but as the text stands I had difficulty so I suggest some kind of clarification. At a minimum, it appears to me that the words “in order” should be removed? |
2023-02-14
|
11 | John Scudder | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for John Scudder |
2023-02-14
|
11 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot comment] # GEN AD review of draft-ietf-emu-tls-eap-types-11 CC @larseggert Thanks to Thomas Fossati for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/fNZOEID38s07l1DnsrSiqNpoXBc). … [Ballot comment] # GEN AD review of draft-ietf-emu-tls-eap-types-11 CC @larseggert Thanks to Thomas Fossati for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/fNZOEID38s07l1DnsrSiqNpoXBc). ## Comments ### Boilerplate Document boilerplate does not indicate intended status? TLP Section 6.a "Submission Compliance for Internet-Drafts" boilerplate text seems to have issues. I-D Guidelines boilerplate text seems to have issues. TLP Section 6.b "Copyright and License Notice" boilerplate text seems to have issues. ## Nits All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you did with these suggestions. ### Boilerplate Document still refers to the "Simplified BSD License", which was corrected in the TLP on September 21, 2021. It should instead refer to the "Revised BSD License". ### Grammar/style #### Section 2.3, paragraph 5 ``` llenge = TLS-Exporter("ttls challenge",, n) There is no "context_value" ([RFC ^^ ``` Two consecutive commas. #### Section 3.1, paragraph 8 ``` tity can then be fully qualified: user name plus realm of the organization. ^^^^^^^^^ ``` It's more common nowadays to write this noun as one word. #### Section 4, paragraph 2 ``` e implemented and tested to be inter-operable with wpa_supplicant 2.10 and W ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ``` This word is normally spelled as one. #### Section 6.1, paragraph 8 ``` e Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March, 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/inf ^^^^^^^^^^^ ``` When specifying a month and year, the comma is unnecessary. #### Section 6.1, paragraph 9 ``` 0, May 2014. [RFC8126] Cotton, M., et al, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Co ^^^^^ ``` A period is misplaced or missing. (Should be "et al."; also elsewhere.) ## Notes This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT]. [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments [IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool |
2023-02-14
|
11 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Lars Eggert |
2023-02-13
|
11 | Amanda Baber | IANA Experts State changed to Expert Reviews OK from Reviews assigned |
2023-02-12
|
11 | Erik Kline | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline |
2023-02-03
|
11 | Melinda Shore | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Melinda Shore. |
2023-02-03
|
11 | Melinda Shore | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Melinda Shore. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date. |
2023-02-02
|
11 | Bob Halley | Request for Telechat review by INTDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Bob Halley. Sent review to list. |
2023-02-01
|
11 | Bernie Volz | Request for Telechat review by INTDIR is assigned to Bob Halley |
2023-02-01
|
11 | Éric Vyncke | Requested Telechat review by INTDIR |
2023-01-31
|
11 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2023-01-31
|
11 | Jürgen Schönwälder | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Jürgen Schönwälder. Sent review to list. |
2023-01-30
|
11 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jürgen Schönwälder |
2023-01-27
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2023-02-16 |
2023-01-27
|
11 | Paul Wouters | Ballot has been issued |
2023-01-27
|
11 | Paul Wouters | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Paul Wouters |
2023-01-27
|
11 | Paul Wouters | Created "Approve" ballot |
2023-01-27
|
11 | Paul Wouters | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup::AD Followup |
2023-01-27
|
11 | Paul Wouters | Ballot writeup was changed |
2023-01-27
|
11 | (System) | Changed action holders to Paul Wouters (IESG state changed) |
2023-01-27
|
11 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2023-01-27
|
11 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2023-01-27
|
11 | Alan DeKok | New version available: draft-ietf-emu-tls-eap-types-11.txt |
2023-01-27
|
11 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-01-27
|
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alan DeKok |
2023-01-27
|
11 | Alan DeKok | Uploaded new revision |
2023-01-27
|
10 | Paul Wouters | Some minor fixes were found and Alan promised us a Revised ID. |
2023-01-27
|
10 | (System) | Changed action holders to Alan DeKok, Paul Wouters (IESG state changed) |
2023-01-27
|
10 | Paul Wouters | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for Writeup |
2023-01-27
|
10 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2023-01-26
|
10 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Melinda Shore |
2023-01-25
|
10 | Rifaat Shekh-Yusef | Assignment of request for Last Call review by SECDIR to Rifaat Shekh-Yusef was rejected |
2023-01-25
|
10 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Rifaat Shekh-Yusef |
2023-01-25
|
10 | Tero Kivinen | Assignment of request for Last Call review by SECDIR to Yaron Sheffer was rejected |
2023-01-24
|
10 | Thomas Fossati | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Thomas Fossati. Sent review to list. |
2023-01-20
|
10 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Thomas Fossati |
2023-01-19
|
10 | Barry Leiba | Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Joseph Yee |
2023-01-19
|
10 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Yaron Sheffer |
2023-01-18
|
10 | David Dong | IANA Experts State changed to Reviews assigned |
2023-01-18
|
10 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2023-01-18
|
10 | David Dong | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-emu-tls-eap-types-10. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-emu-tls-eap-types-10. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. The IANA Functions Operator has a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document. The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete. In the TLS Exporter Labels registry on the Transport Layer Security (TLS) Parameters registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-parameters/ Value: EXPORTER: teap session key seed DTLS-OK: N Recommended: Y Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Note: Only to be used for TEAP Value: EXPORTER: Inner Methods Compound Keys DTLS-OK: N Recommended: Y Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Note: Only to be used for TEAP Value: EXPORTER: Session Key Generating Function DTLS-OK: N Recommended: Y Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Note: Only to be used for TEAP Value: EXPORTER: Extended Session Key Generating Function DTLS-OK: N Recommended: Y Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Note: Only to be used for TEAP As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK." IANA Question -> is the string "TEAPbindkey@ietf.org" intended as an Exporter Label? The IANA Functions Operator understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed. For definitions of IANA review states, please see: https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review Thank you, David Dong IANA Services Specialist |
2023-01-13
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2023-01-13
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-01-27): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: draft-ietf-emu-tls-eap-types@ietf.org, emu-chairs@ietf.org, emu@ietf.org, jsalowey@gmail.com, paul.wouters@aiven.io … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-01-27): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: draft-ietf-emu-tls-eap-types@ietf.org, emu-chairs@ietf.org, emu@ietf.org, jsalowey@gmail.com, paul.wouters@aiven.io Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (TLS-based EAP types and TLS 1.3) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the EAP Method Update WG (emu) to consider the following document: - 'TLS-based EAP types and TLS 1.3' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2023-01-27. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract EAP-TLS (RFC 5216) has been updated for TLS 1.3 in RFC 9190. Many other EAP types also depend on TLS, such as EAP-FAST (RFC 4851), EAP- TTLS (RFC 5281), TEAP (RFC 7170), and possibly many vendor specific EAP methods. This document updates those methods in order to use the new key derivation methods available in TLS 1.3. Additional changes necessitated by TLS 1.3 are also discussed. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-emu-tls-eap-types/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2023-01-13
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2023-01-13
|
10 | Paul Wouters | Last call was requested |
2023-01-13
|
10 | Paul Wouters | Ballot approval text was generated |
2023-01-13
|
10 | Paul Wouters | Ballot writeup was generated |
2023-01-13
|
10 | (System) | Changed action holders to Paul Wouters (IESG state changed) |
2023-01-13
|
10 | Paul Wouters | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested |
2023-01-13
|
10 | Paul Wouters | Last call announcement was changed |
2023-01-13
|
10 | Alan DeKok | New version available: draft-ietf-emu-tls-eap-types-10.txt |
2023-01-13
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-01-13
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alan DeKok |
2023-01-13
|
10 | Alan DeKok | Uploaded new revision |
2022-10-08
|
09 | Joseph Salowey | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? This document reflects strong consensus from members of the working group interested in TLS EAP types. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? Consensus was in general strong. There are areas where there is less implementation experience, but no objection to moving forward. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize 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.) No extreme discontent 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? A number of vendors are looking to implement this specification. There have already been interoperable implementations for most of the methods in the document. EAP-FAST and TEAP are a little behind in implementation. ## Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. This document is built on TLS. It does not modify TLS, but it uses existing TLS interfaces. Members of the TLS WG have reviewed this document. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. NA 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in [RFC 8342][5]? NA 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. NA ## Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? YES 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? The security area issues list has been reviewed by the shepherd. The document has not yet been reviewed by the security area directorate. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? The document is requesting publication as a proposed standard. It updates both information and standards track documents (RFC 7170 - TEAP) 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when applicable. No IPR disclosures have been made for this document. No one has raised any questions about IPR. 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is greater than five, please provide a justification. Yes, there is only one author 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) The draft has been reviewed for nits. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. The informative and normative references look appropriate. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? All the normative references are freely available 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. No 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state? If so, what is the plan for their completion? No 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. The document updates, but does not change the state of any existing RFCs. 20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). The document just adds values to existing registry for TLS exporter labels. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. No new registries. [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ |
2022-10-08
|
09 | Joseph Salowey | Responsible AD changed to Paul Wouters |
2022-10-08
|
09 | Joseph Salowey | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead |
2022-10-08
|
09 | Joseph Salowey | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2022-10-08
|
09 | Joseph Salowey | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2022-10-08
|
09 | Joseph Salowey | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway cleared. |
2022-10-08
|
09 | Joseph Salowey | IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call |
2022-10-08
|
09 | Joseph Salowey | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2022-10-08
|
09 | Joseph Salowey | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2022-10-08
|
09 | Joseph Salowey | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? This document reflects strong consensus from members of the working group interested in TLS EAP types. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? Consensus was in general strong. There are areas where there is less implementation experience, but no objection to moving forward. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize 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.) No extreme discontent 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? A number of vendors are looking to implement this specification. There have already been interoperable implementations for most of the methods in the document. EAP-FAST and TEAP are a little behind in implementation. ## Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. This document is built on TLS. It does not modify TLS, but it uses existing TLS interfaces. Members of the TLS WG have reviewed this document. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. NA 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in [RFC 8342][5]? NA 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. NA ## Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? YES 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? The security area issues list has been reviewed by the shepherd. The document has not yet been reviewed by the security area directorate. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? The document is requesting publication as a proposed standard. It updates both information and standards track documents (RFC 7170 - TEAP) 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when applicable. No IPR disclosures have been made for this document. No one has raised any questions about IPR. 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is greater than five, please provide a justification. Yes, there is only one author 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) The draft has been reviewed for nits. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. The informative and normative references look appropriate. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? All the normative references are freely available 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. No 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state? If so, what is the plan for their completion? No 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. The document updates, but does not change the state of any existing RFCs. 20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). The document just adds values to existing registry for TLS exporter labels. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. No new registries. [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ |
2022-09-27
|
09 | Alan DeKok | New version available: draft-ietf-emu-tls-eap-types-09.txt |
2022-09-27
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2022-09-27
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alan DeKok |
2022-09-27
|
09 | Alan DeKok | Uploaded new revision |
2022-09-26
|
08 | Joseph Salowey | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? This document reflects strong consensus from members of the working group interested in TLS types. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? Consensus was in general strong. There are areas where there is less implementation experience, but no objection to moving forward. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize 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.) No extreme discontent 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? A number of vendors are looking to implement this specification. There have already been interoperable implementations for most of the methods in the document. EAP-FAST and TEAP are a little behind in implementation. ## Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. This document is built on TLS. It does not modify TLS, but it uses existing TLS interfaces. Members of the TLS WG have reviewed this document. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. NA 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in [RFC 8342][5]? NA 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. NA ## Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? YES 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? The security area issues, list has been reviewed by the shepherd. The document has not yet been reviewed by the security area directorate. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? The document is requesting publication as a proposed standard. It updates both information and standards track documents (RFC 7170 - TEAP) 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when applicable. No IPR disclosures have been made for this document. No one has raised any questions about IPR. 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is greater than five, please provide a justification. Yes, there is only one author 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) The draft has been reviewed for nits. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. The informative and normative references look appropriate. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? All the normative references are freely available 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. No 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state? If so, what is the plan for their completion? No 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. The document updates, but does not change the state of any existing RFCs. 20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). The document just adds values to existing registry for TLS exporter labels. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. No new registries. [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ |
2022-09-21
|
08 | Alan DeKok | New version available: draft-ietf-emu-tls-eap-types-08.txt |
2022-09-21
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2022-09-21
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alan DeKok |
2022-09-21
|
08 | Alan DeKok | Uploaded new revision |
2022-09-20
|
07 | Joseph Salowey | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors and editors to complete these checks. Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure to answer all of them. ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? This document reflects strong consensus from members of the working group interested in TLS types. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? Consensus was in general strong. There are areas where there is less implementation experience, but no objection to moving forward. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize 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.) 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? A number of vendors are looking to implement this specification. There have already been interoperable implementations for most of the methods in the document. EAP-FAST and TEAP are a little behind in implementation. ## Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. This document is built on TLS. It does not modify TLS, but it uses existing TLS interfaces. Members of the TLS WG have reviewed this document. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. NA 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in [RFC 8342][5]? NA 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. NA ## Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? YES 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? The security area issues, list has been reviewed by the shepherd. The document has not yet been reviewed by the security area directorate. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when applicable. No IPR has been disclosed. 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is greater than five, please provide a justification. Yes 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state? If so, what is the plan for their completion? 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. 20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ |
2022-09-20
|
07 | Joseph Salowey | Notification list changed to jsalowey@gmail.com because the document shepherd was set |
2022-09-20
|
07 | Joseph Salowey | Document shepherd changed to Joseph A. Salowey |
2022-09-20
|
07 | Joseph Salowey | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set. |
2022-09-20
|
07 | Joseph Salowey | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2022-07-05
|
07 | Alan DeKok | New version available: draft-ietf-emu-tls-eap-types-07.txt |
2022-07-05
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2022-07-05
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alan DeKok |
2022-07-05
|
07 | Alan DeKok | Uploaded new revision |
2022-05-25
|
06 | Alan DeKok | New version available: draft-ietf-emu-tls-eap-types-06.txt |
2022-05-25
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2022-05-25
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alan DeKok |
2022-05-25
|
06 | Alan DeKok | Uploaded new revision |
2022-03-05
|
05 | Alan DeKok | New version available: draft-ietf-emu-tls-eap-types-05.txt |
2022-03-05
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2022-03-05
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alan DeKok |
2022-03-05
|
05 | Alan DeKok | Uploaded new revision |
2022-01-21
|
04 | Alan DeKok | New version available: draft-ietf-emu-tls-eap-types-04.txt |
2022-01-21
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2022-01-21
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alan DeKok |
2022-01-21
|
04 | Alan DeKok | Uploaded new revision |
2021-12-24
|
03 | (System) | Document has expired |
2021-07-22
|
03 | Mohit Sethi | Added to session: IETF-111: emu Thu-1630 |
2021-06-22
|
03 | Alan DeKok | New version available: draft-ietf-emu-tls-eap-types-03.txt |
2021-06-22
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-06-22
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alan DeKok |
2021-06-22
|
03 | Alan DeKok | Uploaded new revision |
2021-02-26
|
02 | Mohit Sethi | Added to session: IETF-110: emu Mon-1300 |
2021-02-21
|
02 | Alan DeKok | New version available: draft-ietf-emu-tls-eap-types-02.txt |
2021-02-21
|
02 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Alan DeKok) |
2021-02-21
|
02 | Alan DeKok | Uploaded new revision |
2021-01-30
|
01 | (System) | Document has expired |
2020-07-29
|
01 | Alan DeKok | New version available: draft-ietf-emu-tls-eap-types-01.txt |
2020-07-29
|
01 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Alan DeKok) |
2020-07-29
|
01 | Alan DeKok | Uploaded new revision |
2020-07-28
|
00 | Mohit Sethi | Added to session: IETF-108: emu Fri-1300 |
2020-07-12
|
00 | Joseph Salowey | This document now replaces draft-dekok-emu-tls-eap-types instead of draft-dekok-emu-eap-session-id |
2020-05-21
|
00 | Mohit Sethi | Added to session: interim-2020-emu-01 |
2020-05-14
|
00 | Joseph Salowey | This document now replaces draft-dekok-emu-eap-session-id instead of None |
2020-05-14
|
00 | Alan DeKok | New version available: draft-ietf-emu-tls-eap-types-00.txt |
2020-05-14
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2020-05-14
|
00 | Alan DeKok | Set submitter to "Alan DeKok ", replaces to draft-dekok-emu-eap-session-id and sent approval email to group chairs: emu-chairs@ietf.org |
2020-05-14
|
00 | Alan DeKok | Uploaded new revision |