[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9965 <draft-ietf-emu-eap-arpa-10> for your review

[[e-mail]]

Authors,

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

1)  <!-- [rfced] We had the following questions related to the document's title:
     
a) Please note that the title of the document has been updated as
follows:

Abbreviations have been expanded per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC
Style Guide"). Please review.

Original:
The eap.arpa. domain and EAP provisioning

Current:
The eap.arpa. Domain and Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Provisioning

b) Please confirm that no period should appear at the end of the
abbreviated title (that appears in the running header of the PDF
output).

Current:
eap.arpa
-->


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


3) <!--[rfced] Would it make sense to update as follows?

Original:
Without credentials, the device cannot obtain network access in order
to be provisioned with credentials.

Perhaps:
Without pre-provisioned credentials, the device cannot obtain network
access in order to be provisioned with credentials.

Or maybe "Without these credentials"?
-->      


4) <!--[rfced] Please confirm the use of the period in the following
     (i.e., outside the quotation marks).  Seems to be related to
     domain use.

Original:
The EPI is an NAI which is a subdomain of "eap.arpa".

Perhaps:
The EPI is an NAI that is a subdomain of "eap.arpa.".
-->


5) <!-- [rfced] We had a few questions about the following:

Original:
   NOTE: the "arpa" domain is controlled by the IAB.  Allocation of the
   eap.arpa. domain name requires agreement from the IAB.

a) We have updated this text as follows as requested in the RFC Editor
Note.  Please review and let us know if you have any objections.

Current:
As the controller of the "arpa" domain, the IAB has approved the
allocation of eap.arpa.

b) We were curious if the reader might need a pointer to where this
agreement could be found?  Or any further citation needed here?
-->


6) <!--[rfced] Please clarify the use of "the EAP registry" in this text:
     Original: ...However, the EAP registry does not follow the domain
     name conventions specified in...
-->        


7) <!--[rfced] In the following, is "EAP peers" intentionally repeated?
     Please review and let us know if a rephrase is necessary.

Original:
Having described the format and contents of NAIs in the eap.arpa realm
to define the EPI, we now describe how those EPIs are used by EAP
peers and EAP peers to signal provisioning information

Perhaps:
Having described the format and contents of NAIs in the eap.arpa realm
to define the EPI, we now describe how those EPIs are used by EAP
peers to signal provisioning information.
-->        


8) <!--[rfced] We had a few questions regarding this text:

Original:
 An EAP server supporting this
 specification MUST examine the identity to see if it uses a realm
 located under eap.arpa. 


a) Would it make sense to update this text as follows (to clarify the
trailing "." character?

Perhaps A:
An EAP server supporting this
specification MUST examine the identity to see if it uses a realm
located under the eap.arpa. domain.

Perhaps B:
An EAP server supporting this
specification MUST examine the identity to see if it uses a realm
located under the eap.arpa realm.         

b) Would it make sense to reword the following?

Perhaps:
An EAP server implementing this specification...
-->


9) <!-- [rfced] We had two questions about the following text:

Original:
 For example, both EAP-MSCHAPv2 (PEAP) and EAP-PWD [RFC5931]
   perform cryptographic exchanges where both parties knowing a shared
   password. 

a) We see that [RFC5931] uses "EAP-pwd" rather than "EAP-PWD".  Please
review and let us know if any updates are necessary.

Current:
   For example, both EAP-MSCHAPv2 (PEAP) and EAP-PWD [RFC5931] perform
   cryptographic exchanges where both parties knowing a shared password.

b) Should MSCHAPv2 be expanded to Microsoft Challenge Handshake
Authentication Protocol version 2?  If so, how does it interact with
the parenthetical (PEAP)?
-->


10) <!--[rfced] Please review the use of 802.11u in the following.  As all
     other instances are to 802.11X, is this use intentional?  If so,
     should a pointer to 802.11u be added?

Original:
The captive portal can advertise support for the eap.arpa. domain via
an 802.11u realm.
-->


11) <!--[rfced] We had several questions related to the IANA
     Considerations in this document.

a) We note that Section 5 (IANA Considerations) describes some of
what's to come in the subsections of Section 5.  This pointed out to
us that perhaps Sections 5.3, 5.3.1, 5.4, and 5.5 should actually be
subsections of Section 5.2 (i.e., what registry does "...this
registry" in Section 5.3 refer to?).

Original:
   A number of IANA actions are required.  There are two registry
   updates in order to define the eap.arpa. domain.  A new registry is
   created.  The "[e-mail]" registry entry is deprecated.

Current:
This document describes a number of IANA actions:

- There are two registry updates in order to define the
eap.arpa. domain (see Section 5.1).

- A new registry is created (see Section 5.2).

- The "[e-mail]" registry entry is deprecated (see Section 5.1.1).

Perhaps:
This document describes a number of IANA actions:

-IANA has made two registry updates in order to define the
eap.arpa. domain (see Section 5.1).

-IANA has created a new registry (see Section 5.2).


With the reorganization of the sections as mentioned above?  Please
review and advise.


b) Note that we have updated mentions of ".arpa registry" to point
instead to the ".ARPA Zone Management" registry.

Please review and advise if this was not what was intended.

c) For the ease of the reader, we have added some citations as well as
an informative reference to the Special-Use Domain Names registry.
Please let us know any objections.

d) In point 6 of Section 5.1.2.1, we see:

Original:
Either behavior will have no impact on this specification.

Would the behavior have an effect on this document (or the content
therein)?  Please review.

e) We see that the "EAP Provisioning Identifiers" registry uses
"Method-Type" while the registry itself uses "Method Type" (with no
hyphen).  May we update uses of Method-Type to read as Method Type
throughout?  Note that we will communicate this change (as well as any
other changes related to IANA registries) to IANA once AUTH48
completes.
-->


12)  <!--[rfced] Please clarify the antecedent of the pronoun "it" in the
      following:

Original:
This specification allows for unauthenticated EAP peers to obtain
network access, however limited.  As with any unauthenticated process,
it can be abused. Implementations should take care to limit the use of
the provisioning network."
-->


13) <!--[rfced] In the following, is "to" missing?  Or is there another
     way to rephrase?

Original:
for any one device, rate limit its access the provisioning network.

Perhaps:
for any one device, rate limit its access to the provisioning network.

-->


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


15) <!--[rfced] We had the following questions related to terminology use
     throughout the document:

a) We see that eap.arpa. domain is used consistently throughout.

However, we see the following with regard to .arpa:

"arpa" domain 
".arpa" domain

Should these be made consistent between themselves or more similar to
eap.arpa. (i.e., no double quotes and trailing period)?

Further, please review the following with regard to the trailing period:

Original:
...the NAI SHOULD be of the form "[e-mail]".
-->


16) <!--[rfced] FYI - We see that an extra space is being inserted after
     "eap.arp." in some places (e.g., titles).  We will dig into to
     see if there is some formatting we can implement to remove the
     added space. -->


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/rfc9965.xml
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9965.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9965.pdf
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9965.txt

Diff file of the text:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9965-diff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9965-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Diff of the XML: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9965-xmldiff1.html


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

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9965

Please let us know if you have any questions.  

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9965 (draft-ietf-emu-eap-arpa-10)

Title            : The eap.arpa. domain and EAP provisioning
Author(s)        : A. DeKok
WG Chair(s)      : Joseph A. Salowey, Peter E. Yee

Area Director(s) : Deb Cooley, Christopher Inacio