RFC 9965: The eap.arpa. Domain and Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Provisioning
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This document defines the eap.arpa. domain for use only in Network Access Identifiers (NAIs) as a way for Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) peers to signal to EAP servers that they wish to obtain limited, and unauthenticated, network access. EAP peers signal which kind of access is required via certain predefined identifiers that use the NAI format of RFC 7542. A table of identifiers and meanings is defined, which includes entries for RFC 9140. This document updates RFCs 5216 and 9190 to define an unauthenticated provisioning method. Those specifications suggest that such a method is possible, but they do not define how it would be done. This document also updates RFC 9140 to deprecate "eap-noob.arpa" and replace it with "@noob.eap.arpa".
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC9965
- Published
- May 2026
- Authors
- A. DeKok
- Status
- PROPOSED STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- sec
- Pages
- 21
- Also known as
- —
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 9964ML-DSA for JSON Object Signing and Encryption (JOSE) and CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)Current
May 2026
- RFC 9966Bootstrapped TLS Authentication with Proof of KnowledgeCurrent
May 2026
- RFC 9967System for Cross-Domain Identity Management (SCIM) Profile for Security Event Tokens (SETs)Current
May 2026
- RFC 9963Legacy RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5 Code Points for TLS 1.3Current
April 2026
- RFC 9958Post-Quantum Cryptography for EngineersCurrent
June 2026
- RFC 9973TLS 1.3 Extension for Using Certificates with an External Pre-Shared KeyCurrent
July 2026
- RFC 9955Hybrid Signature SpectrumsCurrent
July 2026
- RFC 9954Hybrid Key Exchange in TLS 1.3Current
July 2026
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?