PPPEXT Working Group B. Aboba INTERNET-DRAFT Microsoft Category: Standards Track 17 February 2002 Updates: RFC 2284 EAP IANA Considerations This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved. Abstract This document describes the IANA considerations for Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP). This document updates RFC 2284. 1. Introduction This document provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) regarding registration of values related to the Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP),defined in [RFC2284], in accordance with BCP 26, [RFC2434]. Aboba Standards Track [Page 1] INTERNET-DRAFT EAP IANA 17 February 2002 1.1. Specification of Requirements In this document, several words are used to signify the requirements of the specification. These words are often capitalized. The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 1.2. Terminology The following terms are used here with the meanings defined in BCP 26: "name space", "assigned value", "registration". The following policies are used here with the meanings defined in BCP 26: "Private Use", "First Come First Served", "Expert Review", "Specification Required", "IETF Consensus", "Standards Action". 2. IANA Considerations There are two name spaces in EAP that require registration: Packet Codes and Method Types. EAP is not intended as a general-purpose protocol, and allocations should not be made for purposes unrelated to authentication. 2.1. Recommended Registration Policies For registration requests where a Designated Expert should be consulted, the responsible IESG Area Director should appoint the Designated Expert. For registration requests requiring Expert Review, the ietf-pppext mailing list should be consulted. Packet Codes have a range from 1 to 255, of which 1-4 have been allocated. Because a new Packet Code has considerable impact on interoperability, a new Packet Code requires Standards Action, and should be allocated starting at 5. Method Types have a range from 1 to 255, and are the scarcest resource in EAP, thus must be allocated with care. Method Types 1-31 have been allocated. Method Types 32-191 may be allocated following Expert Review, with Specification Required. Release of blocks of Method Types (more than 1 at a time for a given purpose) should require IETF Consensus. Method Type TBD is allocated for Vendor-Specific extensions and the use of that should be encouraged instead of allocation of global Method Types, for functions specific only to one vendor's implementation of EAP, where no interoperability is deemed useful. Aboba Standards Track [Page 2] INTERNET-DRAFT EAP IANA 17 February 2002 EAP Method Types 128-255 are reserved and allocation requires Standards Action. 3. Normative references [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC2434] Alvestrand, H. and Narten, T., "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998. [RFC2284] Blunk, L., Vollbrecht, J., "PPP Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)", RFC 2284, March 1998. 4. Security Considerations This focusses on IANA considerations, and does not have security considerations. Acknowledgments Thanks to Glen Zorn of Cisco, and Ashwin Palekar of Microsoft for discussions relating to this document. Authors' Addresses Bernard Aboba Microsoft Corporation One Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052 EMail: bernarda@microsoft.com Phone: +1 425 706 6605 Fax: +1 425 706 7329 Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice Aboba Standards Track [Page 3] INTERNET-DRAFT EAP IANA 17 February 2002 or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE." Expiration Date This memo is filed as , and expires August 19, 2002. Aboba Standards Track [Page 4]