eap Mailing List: Re: FW: [eap] WG Action: RECHARTER: Extensible Authentication Protocol (eap)

[Bernard Aboba (aboba]

> Would these reviews ultimately lead to Type code allocations under the
> current charter or not?

That was the intent of RFC 3748.

> Allocation calls for Specification Required, which mandates "an RFC or
> other permanent and readily available reference". If these are not
> standards track document, would they become have to become informational
> RFCs? I wonder if that's the plan, or am I missing something?

The intent was to require a specification that could be reviewed.

However, the level of review required for allocation of a Type code need
not (and IMHO, should not) be as detailed or demanding as for publishing
an EAP method specification as a Proposed Standard or even an Informational
RFC.  Though I suppose that this is up to the particular Expert in
question.

I would say the most relevant questions for Type Code allocation are:

  "Is it clear and unambiguous?"
  "Does this method conform to RFC 3748?" and
  "Are all relevant IANA considerations policies being followed?"

Unfortunately, recent experience with RFC 2780 tells us that sometimes
IANA considerations policies do not have the intended result.

For example, I've been told by folks who have recently attempted to obtain
IP parameter allocations (such as an IP protocol # and even a port) that
their experience was "less than satisfactory" (the PG-rated translation).

In closing, I'd remind you of the immortal words of Monty Python:

"Nobody is expecting the Spanish Inquisition"