Technology aggregate

EAP

EAP methods and their TLS and CHAP building blocks. The RFCs whose summary names the eap aggregate, with their mandatory and optional coverage.

All profiles · All RFCs

Mandatory69.2%119 of 172 (69.2%)

MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL and SHALL NOT rows of the walked RFCs that a recorded test break proves.

Optional10.2%6 of 59 (10.2%)

MAY, NOT RECOMMENDED, OPTIONAL, RECOMMENDED, SHOULD and SHOULD NOT rows, counted the same way.

Mandatory ceiling92.4%159 of 172 (92.4%); excluded: Optional feature not offered (classification can be revisited): 5 of 172 (2.9%); Met by a lower layer: 2 of 172 (1.2%); Not applicable (classification can be revisited): 6 of 172 (3.5%)

Attainable mandatory rows under current classifications, over the unchanged total.

Optional ceiling100.0%59 of 59 (100.0%)

Attainable optional rows under current classifications, over the unchanged total.

Not walked1of 6 RFCs

RFCs with no valid extraction sign-off: their rows count in neither figure.

Mandatory registernot completeevery row proven, none unwalked

A profile is complete only when it requires at least one RFC and none of them is unwalked.

Mandatory ceiling: 159 of 172 (92.4%); excluded: Optional feature not offered (classification can be revisited): 5 of 172 (2.9%); Met by a lower layer: 2 of 172 (1.2%); Not applicable (classification can be revisited): 6 of 172 (3.5%). Optional ceiling: 59 of 59 (100.0%). Lowest mandatory ceiling: rfc3748 53 of 59 (89.8%). Lowest optional ceiling: rfc2759 4 of 4 (100.0%). Ceilings describe current classifications, not an immutable Linux maximum. Not-applicable and feature-declined classifications can be revisited. Every gap remains work Ze owes.

Tree

Roots first: an RFC sits one level above the highest level of the RFCs it builds on, and the RFCs of one citation cycle share a level. Each bar is the share of that figure's rows a recorded break proves; the ceiling below it shows attainable rows under current classifications. An RFC that is not walked shows an empty bar and no figure or ceiling.

Level 2

RFCTitleMandatoryOptional
RFC 2759 Microsoft PPP CHAP Extensions, Version 2 4 of 7 (57.1%)Ceiling: 7 of 7 (100.0%) 2 of 4 (50.0%)Ceiling: 4 of 4 (100.0%)
RFC 3748 Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) 42 of 59 (71.2%)Ceiling: 53 of 59 (89.8%); excluded: Not applicable (classification can be revisited): 6 of 59 (10.2%) 0 of 4 (0.0%)Ceiling: 4 of 4 (100.0%)

Level 5

RFCTitleMandatoryOptional
RFC 5216 The EAP-TLS Authentication Protocol 30 of 47 (63.8%)Ceiling: 45 of 47 (95.7%); excluded: Met by a lower layer: 2 of 47 (4.3%) 2 of 7 (28.6%)Ceiling: 7 of 7 (100.0%)
RFC 5998 An Extension for EAP-Only Authentication in IKEv2 1 of 6 (16.7%)Ceiling: 6 of 6 (100.0%) 0 of 1 (0.0%)Ceiling: 1 of 1 (100.0%)
RFC 7627 Transport Layer Security (TLS) Session Hash and Extended Master Secret Extension not walked not walked

Level 6

RFCTitleMandatoryOptional
RFC 9190 EAP-TLS 1.3: Using the Extensible Authentication Protocol with TLS 1.3 42 of 53 (79.2%)Ceiling: 48 of 53 (90.6%); excluded: Optional feature not offered (classification can be revisited): 5 of 53 (9.4%) 2 of 43 (4.7%)Ceiling: 43 of 43 (100.0%)