Everytime one looks at implementating solutions to support strategic IT planning, transformation, optimisations and governance one is asked one supports one or more of the common EA frameworks.
The use word "frameworks" gives a good insight to EA as a practice. Major EA frameworks (FEAF, DODAF, TOGAF, Zachman) mean different things by the terms (taxonomy, method, reference models, architectural styles) and have different roles.
In my experience people who ask about this seldom have a good grasp of the real questions - so I usually ask them to describe what they are trying to achieve. This usually provokes frustrated responses because they don't want they want to achieve they just want to follow the framework du jour.
It would perhaps be more acceptable to blythly follow these frameworks, if over more than a decade, they had proved widely successful.