Subject: [Emu] PROTO write-up for EAP-GPSK

From: "Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:13:05 -0800

Below is the PROTO write-up for EAP-GPSK.  Please let me know if there
are any issues with the write-up. I will send EAP-GPSK to the IESG in
the next few weeks.  

Thanks,

Joe

----------
(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?

I am the document shepherd for this document and I have personally
reviewed the document  and believe it is ready for forwarding to the
IESG for publication.

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

The document has received adequate review from both working group and
non WG members.  At  least one working group member, Jouni Malinen has
implemented the specification and  provided feedback that has improved
the document.  In addition the document has received  review from
researchers from several universities an their feedback has been
incorporated.  The document has also received some review from NIST. 

(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?

No

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues
with this document  hat 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 concerns  here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this
document been filed? If so, please include a  reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue.

The working group had some discussion late in the process over whether
an approach using  EAP-TLS with TLS-PSK was a better approach.  The
EAP-GPSK document was preferred because:

1. Implementation experience has shown that EAP-GPSK is easy to
implement. 
2. EAP-GPSK requires fewer cryptographic primitives than TLS and can be
implemented more  compactly.
3. Currently EAP-TLS explicitly requires the use of certificates. 

EAP-GPSK should be able to meet any future EAP channel binding
requirements because it  defines a mechanism to carry payloads of
various types. 

(1.e) 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 document represents a reasonably strong consensus with most of the
active members of  the working group in favor of the document moving
forward.

(1.f) 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 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

(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 document has split references with no downward or dependent
references

(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 suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See  [RFC2434]. 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?

IANA considerations section exists and is consistent with the body of
the document.   Appropriate registries are requested, identified and
populated with initial values.  

(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?

Not applicable

(1.k) 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:

Technical Summary 

This Internet Draft defines an Extensible Authentication Protocol method
called EAP  Generalized Pre-Shared Key (EAP-GPSK).  This method is a
lightweight shared-key  authentication protocol supporting mutual
authentication and key derivation.  The method  should be able to
support any future EAP channel binding requirements. 

Working Group Summary 

The base document for EAP-GPSK was originally created by a design team.
There was  working group consensus to accept the document to meet the
Pre-Shared-Key EAP method on  the working group charter. 

Document Quality 

There is an existing implementation of the protocol.  NIST was consulted
and participated  in the review of the document resulting in some
modifications to the key derivation  function. The document has been
reviewed by external researchers and their feedback has  been
incorporated.  EAP experts within the EMU working group have reviewed
the document.   This document meets requirements set forth in RF3748,
RFC 4017 and the EAP Key Management  Framework. 

Personnel 

Joe Salowey, the EMU chair, is the document shepherd.   The responsible
Area Director is  Sam Hartman. 

_______________________________________________
Emu mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu