Skip to main content

CoAP Transfer for the Certificate Management Protocol
draft-ietf-ace-cmpv2-coap-transport-04

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2022-03-23
04 Amy Vezza Changed action holders to Paul Wouters, Mohit Sahni, Saurabh Tripathi
2022-03-23
04 Amy Vezza Shepherding AD changed to Paul Wouters
2022-02-14
04 (System) Changed action holders to Benjamin Kaduk, Mohit Sahni, Saurabh Tripathi (IESG state changed)
2022-02-14
04 Benjamin Kaduk IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2022-02-08
04 (System) Changed action holders to Benjamin Kaduk (IESG state changed)
2022-02-08
04 Benjamin Kaduk IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2021-11-08
04 Daniel Migault
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated …
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Standard Track is the expected status. This is appropriated as interoperability is required.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction.

This document specifies the use of Constrained Application Protocol
  (CoAP) as a transfer mechanism for the Certificate Management
  Protocol (CMP).  purpose of certificate creation and management.
  CoAP is an HTTP like client-server protocol used by various
  constrained devices in the IoT space.


Working Group Summary:

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?

No

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

Currently there is an open source implementation to support CMP over CoAP maintained by @David von Oheimb. I believe these do not follow the draft exactly but are based on this draft. Here are github links:
https://github.com/siemens/LightweightCmpRa
https://github.com/siemens/embeddedCMP


Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Daniel MIgault is the document shepherd, Ben Kaduk is the AD.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

The document has been through a very long WGLC over ace and lamps. We received some feed backs, but no controversies have been raised.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

It would be good to have more reviews, but that what we had.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

Both co-authors have confirmed on the ace mailing list they are not aware of any IPR.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

NA

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

none opposed the draft.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

no

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

The nits reports BCP14 not being mentioned, but it is present in the draft.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The draft uses .well-known/cmp. .well-known/cmp is indicated as temporary [iana] and cmp-updates is still a draft. I am not sure we need to wait for cmp-updates to be published, but if the draft is abandoned we may need to indicate IANA that the cmp needs to be moved to permanent after 2022-05-20 - or may be at the publication of this draft.

[iana] https://www.iana.org/assignments/well-known-uris/well-known-uris.xhtml

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

There is only the cmp well known URI that we should make permanent if the draft is published before cmp-updates

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

no

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

no

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

The well known uri is already allocated. We may just need to move its temporary status to permanent.

The only allocation is the pkixcmp of the CoAP Content Format Registry code and follows the format of the current registry.


(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

NA

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

nits.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

2021-11-08
04 Daniel Migault Responsible AD changed to Benjamin Kaduk
2021-11-08
04 Daniel Migault IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from In WG Last Call
2021-11-08
04 Daniel Migault IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2021-11-08
04 Daniel Migault IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2021-11-08
04 Daniel Migault Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared.
2021-11-08
04 Daniel Migault Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2021-11-08
04 Daniel Migault Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2021-11-08
04 Daniel Migault
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated …
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Standard Track is the expected status. This is appropriated as interoperability is required.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction.

This document specifies the use of Constrained Application Protocol
  (CoAP) as a transfer mechanism for the Certificate Management
  Protocol (CMP).  purpose of certificate creation and management.
  CoAP is an HTTP like client-server protocol used by various
  constrained devices in the IoT space.


Working Group Summary:

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?

No

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

Currently there is an open source implementation to support CMP over CoAP maintained by @David von Oheimb. I believe these do not follow the draft exactly but are based on this draft. Here are github links:
https://github.com/siemens/LightweightCmpRa
https://github.com/siemens/embeddedCMP


Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Daniel MIgault is the document shepherd, Ben Kaduk is the AD.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

The document has been through a very long WGLC over ace and lamps. We received some feed backs, but no controversies have been raised.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

It would be good to have more reviews, but that what we had.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

Both co-authors have confirmed on the ace mailing list they are not aware of any IPR.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

NA

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

none opposed the draft.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

no

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

The nits reports BCP14 not being mentioned, but it is present in the draft.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The draft uses .well-known/cmp. .well-known/cmp is indicated as temporary [iana] and cmp-updates is still a draft. I am not sure we need to wait for cmp-updates to be published, but if the draft is abandoned we may need to indicate IANA that the cmp needs to be moved to permanent after 2022-05-20 - or may be at the publication of this draft.

[iana] https://www.iana.org/assignments/well-known-uris/well-known-uris.xhtml

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

There is only the cmp well known URI that we should make permanent if the draft is published before cmp-updates

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

no

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

no

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

The well known uri is already allocated. We may just need to move its temporary status to permanent.

The only allocation is the pkixcmp of the CoAP Content Format Registry code and follows the format of the current registry.


(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

NA

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

nits.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

2021-11-08
04 Mohit Sahni New version available: draft-ietf-ace-cmpv2-coap-transport-04.txt
2021-11-08
04 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Mohit Sahni)
2021-11-08
04 Mohit Sahni Uploaded new revision
2021-10-25
03 Daniel Migault
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated …
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Standard Track is the expected status. This is appropriated as interoperability is required.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction.

This document specifies the use of Constrained Application Protocol
  (CoAP) as a transfer mechanism for the Certificate Management
  Protocol (CMP).  purpose of certificate creation and management.
  CoAP is an HTTP like client-server protocol used by various
  constrained devices in the IoT space.


Working Group Summary:

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?

No

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

Currently there is an open source implementation to support CMP over CoAP maintained by @David von Oheimb. I believe these do not follow the draft exactly but are based on this draft. Here are github links:
https://github.com/siemens/LightweightCmpRa
https://github.com/siemens/embeddedCMP


Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Daniel MIgault is the document shepherd, Ben Kaduk is the AD.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

The document has been through a very long WGLC over ace and lamps. We received some feed backs, but no controversies have been raised.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

It would be good to have more reviews, but that what we had.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

Both co-authors have confirmed on the ace mailing list they are not aware of any IPR.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

NA

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

none opposed the draft.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

no

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

The nits reports BCP14 not being mentioned, but it is present in the draft.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The draft uses .well-known/cmp. .well-known/cmp is indicated as temporary [iana] and cmp-updates is still a draft. I am not sure we need to wait for cmp-updates to be published, but if the draft is abandoned we may need to indicate IANA that the cmp needs to be moved to permanent after 2022-05-20 - or may be at the publication of this draft.

[iana] https://www.iana.org/assignments/well-known-uris/well-known-uris.xhtml

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

There is only the cmp well known URI that we should make permanent if the draft is published before cmp-updates

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

no

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

no

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

The well known uri is already allocated. We may just need to move its temporary status to permanent.

The only allocation is the pkixcmp of the CoAP Content Format Registry code and follows the format of the current registry.


(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

NA

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

nits.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

2021-10-25
03 Daniel Migault
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated …
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Standard Track is the expected status. This is appropriated as interoperability is required.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction.

This document specifies the use of Constrained Application Protocol
  (CoAP) as a transfer mechanism for the Certificate Management
  Protocol (CMP).  purpose of certificate creation and management.
  CoAP is an HTTP like client-server protocol used by various
  constrained devices in the IoT space.


Working Group Summary:

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?

No

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

XXXX

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Daniel MIgault is the document shepherd, Ben Kaduk is the AD.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

The document has been through a very long WGLC over ace and lamps. We received some feed backs, but no controversies have been raised.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

It would be good to have more reviews, but that what we had.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

XXX

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

XXX

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

none opposed the draft.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

no

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

XXX

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The draft uses .well-known/cmp. .well-known/cmp is indicated as temporary [iana] and cmp-updates is still a draft. I am not sure we need to wait for cmp-updates to be published, but if the draft is abandoned we may need to indicate IANA that the cmp needs to be moved to permanent after 2022-05-20 - or may be at the publication of this draft.

[iana] https://www.iana.org/assignments/well-known-uris/well-known-uris.xhtml

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

There is only the cmp well known URI that we should make permanent if the draft is published before cmp-updates

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

no

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

no

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

The well known uri is already allocated. We may just need to move its temporary status to permanent.

The only allocation is the pkixcmp of the CoAP Content Format Registry code.

XXX


(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

NA

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

nits.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

2021-10-25
03 Daniel Migault Notification list changed to mglt.ietf@gmail.com because the document shepherd was set
2021-10-25
03 Daniel Migault Document shepherd changed to Daniel Migault
2021-10-01
03 Mohit Sahni New version available: draft-ietf-ace-cmpv2-coap-transport-03.txt
2021-10-01
03 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Mohit Sahni)
2021-10-01
03 Mohit Sahni Uploaded new revision
2021-08-30
02 Daniel Migault IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2021-08-30
02 Daniel Migault Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set.
2021-05-25
02 Mohit Sahni New version available: draft-ietf-ace-cmpv2-coap-transport-02.txt
2021-05-25
02 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Mohit Sahni)
2021-05-25
02 Mohit Sahni Uploaded new revision
2021-04-22
01 Mohit Sahni New version available: draft-ietf-ace-cmpv2-coap-transport-01.txt
2021-04-22
01 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Mohit Sahni)
2021-04-22
01 Mohit Sahni Uploaded new revision
2021-02-21
00 Daniel Migault This document now replaces draft-msahni-ace-cmpv2-coap-transport instead of None
2021-02-21
00 Mohit Sahni New version available: draft-ietf-ace-cmpv2-coap-transport-00.txt
2021-02-21
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2021-02-20
00 Mohit Sahni Set submitter to "Mohit Sahni <msahni@paloaltonetworks.com>", replaces to draft-msahni-ace-cmpv2-coap-transport and sent approval email to group chairs: ace-chairs@ietf.org
2021-02-20
00 Mohit Sahni Uploaded new revision