[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9966 <draft-ietf-emu-bootstrapped-tls-11> for your review

["Owen Friel (ofriel)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Thank you for your review.

See inline for [ofriel]

Regards,
Owen + Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Tuesday 28 April 2026 05:52
To: Owen Friel (ofriel) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9966 <draft-ietf-emu-bootstrapped-tls-11> for your review

Authors,

While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the source file.

1) <!--[rfced] Might we remove the abbreviation from the title as it
     currently doesn't share a 1:1 relationship with the expansion?
     Or is there a way to match them up?

Original:
Bootstrapped TLS Authentication with Proof of Knowledge (TLS-POK)

Expansion of TLS-POK per the document:
TLS Proof of Knowledge
-->

[ofriel] We are fine with removing TLK-POK from the title

2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->

[ofriel] We have no other additions.

3) <!--[rfced] We note that the Terminology section defines "802.1X".
     However, most uses in the document are actually the citation.
     Please review and let us know if/how to update. -->

[ofriel] We are fine with removing the citation links to 802.1X throughout the doc after the terminology section, and only including 802.1X

4) <!--[rfced] Is there text missing here?  Specifically, please focus on
     the part beginning with "for instance".  (Note that RFC 7170 has
     been obsoleted by RFC 9930.)

Original:
   Devices whose BSK public key can be obtained in an out-of-band
   fashion and provisioned on the EAP server can perform a TLS-based EAP
   exchange, for instance Tunnel Extensible Authentication Protocol
   (TEAP) [RFC7170], and authenticate the TLS exchange using the
   authentication mechanisms defined in Section 3.

-->

[ofriel] What about: "Devices whose BSK public key can be obtained in an out-of-band
fashion and provisioned on the EAP server can authenticate with the EAP server using
the mechanisms defined in Section 3 and Section 4."

5) <!--[rfced] Is the following text a comment?  If so, may we request it
     be updated as follows (as this is in SVG, we assume the authors
     will update and regenerate.

Original:
   target_kdf = <as per RFC9258>

Perhaps:
   target_kdf = <as per RFC 9258>
-->

[ofriel] Yes, this can be changed to what you suggest. Do we have to upload a new document? Should we change from SVG to ASCII, would that make things easier?

6) <!--[rfced] Please review the difference between the SVG and ASCII art
     for Figure 1 with regard to the text immediately under
     ClientHello.  In the ASCII, these are +'s while in the SVG a
     single line.  If an update is necessary, please provide updated
     artwork.-->

[ofriel] We think it should be "+" in the SVG anyway. Can you make that fix for us without us having to rev the doc? Should we change to ASCII?


7) <!--[rfced] Please review the title we added for Figure 2 in Section 4
     and let us know if any further updates are necessary.

Current:
Figure 2: EAP Exchange Using TLS-POK

-->

[ofriel] Yes, this looks good.


8) <!--[rfced] We note that this document and the registry at https://www.iana.org/assignments/eap-numbers/eap-numbers.xhtml#eap-provisioning-ids both use hyphenated "Method-Type".  However, see the use of "Method Type" at https://www.iana.org/assignments/eap-numbers/eap-numbers.xhtml#eap-numbers-4.

Should these be made uniform here and at the IANA registry?

Note that draft-ietf-emu-eap-arpa-10 now uses "Method Types" to match the "Method Types" registry.

-->

[ofriel] Yes, change to "Method Types" to align

9) <!-- [rfced] [IEEE802.1X] Please review.  This reference currently
     points to the version of IEEE 802.1X from 2010. This version has
     been superseded. The newest version - IEEE 802.1X:2020 - was
     published in 2020. Note that this IEEE Std was also made an
     international standard - IEEE/ISO/IEC 8802-1X:2021 - in 2021.

Should this reference be updated to one of the more current versions?
-->

[ofriel] Yes, go with the latest and greatest.


10) <!-- [rfced] We had the following questions regarding DPP:

a) The [DPP] reference: Please review. We were unable to find a specification from Wi-Fi Alliance with the title "Device Provisioning Profile".

We noticed that this document states:

Device on-boarding protocols such as the Device Provisioning Profile [DPP], also referred to as Wi-Fi Easy Connect, address this use case but they have drawbacks.

And the most current version of Wi-Fi Easy Connect specification
states:

The terms "Device Provisioning Protocol" and "DPP" found throughout this document are interchangeable with "Wi-Fi Easy Connect".

May we update this reference to point to the most current version of the Wi-Fi Alliance "Wi-Fi Easy Connect" specification?

Current:
   [DPP]      Wi-Fi Alliance, "Device Provisioning Profile", 2020.

Perhaps:
   [DPP]  Wi-Fi Alliance, "Wi-Fi Easy Connect(TM) Specification",
              Version 3.0, 2022, <https://www.wi-fi.org/system/files/Wi-
              Fi_Easy_Connect_Specification_v3.0.pdf>.

[ofriel] Yes, update to the latest reference.

b) Please note that we see both of the following expansions for the DPP abbreviation:

Device Provisioning Protocol

Device Provisioning Profile

Please let us know how to update for uniformity.-->


[ofriel] Change to use "Device Provisioning Protocol" throughout.


11) <!--[rfced] We note that RFC 7170 has been obsoleted by RFC 9930.  We
     have updated to the latter.  Please let us know any
     objections. -->

[ofriel] Yes, please use RFC 9930.

12) <!--[rfced] We see that the test vectors that exist in the appendices
     are not formatted in the XML as <sourcecode>.  Additionally, as
     they currently exist, the portion in <tt> extends beyond the 72
     character line limit.  We suggest reformatting these as
     <sourcecode> with a type set to test-vectors (or maybe base64?).

See https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types
for more information on <sourcecode> types.

-->

[ofriel] Makes sense. Do we have anything do to here, or can you take care of this?


13)     <!--[rfced] We had the following queries related to abbreviation use:

a) We have removed expansions after first use and simply used the abbreviation per the guidance at https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#exp_abbrev.  

[ofriel] Yes, this makes sense.


b) As the K in BSK stands for "Key", is text like this redundant (more similar instances exist)?

Original:
Devices whose BSK public key can be obtained ...

Same goes for EPSK:
Original:
...the server looks up the client's EPSK key...

Note also that there are some uses of "bootstrap public key".  Please compare and contrast with "Bootstrap Key public key" (or BSK public
key) to ensure that these are made uniform if necessary.

-->

[ofriel] We agree it makes sense to replace the 4 instances of "bootstrap public key" with "BSK public key"

Thank you.

Megan Ferguson
RFC Production Center

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2026/04/27

RFC Author(s):
--------------

Instructions for Completing AUTH48

Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed and approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.  
If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/)

You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing your approval.

Planning your review
---------------------

Please review the following aspects of your document:

*  RFC Editor questions

   Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor 
   that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as 
   follows:

   <!-- [rfced] ... -->

   These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.

*  Changes submitted by coauthors 

   Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your 
   coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you 
   agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.

*  Content 

   Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot 
   change once the RFC is published.  Please pay particular attention to:
   - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
   - contact information
   - references

*  Copyright notices and legends

   Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
   RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions 
   (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)

*  Semantic markup

   Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of  
   content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that <sourcecode> 
   and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at 
   <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.

*  Formatted output

   Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the 
   formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is 
   reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting 
   limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.


Submitting changes
------------------

To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties
include:

   *  your coauthors
   
   *  [e-mail] (the RPC team)

   *  other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., 
      IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the 
      responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
     
   *  [e-mail], which is a new archival mailing list 
      to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion 
      list:
     
     *  More info:
        https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
     
     *  The archive itself:
        https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/

     *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out 
        of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
        If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you 
        have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, 
        [e-mail] will be re-added to the CC list and 
        its addition will be noted at the top of the message. 

You may submit your changes in one of two ways:

An update to the provided XML file
 — OR —
An explicit list of changes in this format

Section # (or indicate Global)

OLD:
old text

NEW:
new text

You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit list of changes, as either form is sufficient.

We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be found in the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.


Approving for publication
--------------------------

To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.


Files
-----

The files are available here:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9966.xml
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9966.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9966.pdf
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9966.txt

Diff file of the text:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9966-diff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9966-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Diff of the XML: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9966-xmldiff1.html


Tracking progress
-----------------

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9966

Please let us know if you have any questions.  

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9966 (draft-ietf-emu-bootstrapped-tls-11)

Title            : Bootstrapped TLS Authentication with Proof of Knowledge (TLS-POK)
Author(s)        : O. Friel, D. Harkins
WG Chair(s)      : Joseph A. Salowey, Peter E. Yee

Area Director(s) : Deb Cooley, Christopher Inacio