Key Management for OSCORE Groups in ACE
draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-oscore-16

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

Shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-oscore-15

## Document History

1.Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

This document has reached a broad agreement in the working group.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?

Based on reviewing conversations on the mailing list and minutes from ACE WG
meetings I have found no such decisions or points.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
so, please summarize 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.)

To my knowledge, no such action has been taken by anyone.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?

An implementation in Java of the content of the document is available at [1].
The implementation builds on Key Provisioning for Group Communication using
ACE (draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm) and ACE framework for Authentication and
Authorization (RFC9200), as the document subject to this write-up itself
does.

[1] https://bitbucket.org/marco-tiloca-sics/ace-java/

The existence of this implementation has been reported during ACE Working
Group meetings.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.

This document closely interacts with technologies being built within the CoRE
Working Group, specifically the Group OSCORE protocol
(draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm). Feedback and reviews to this document has
been received from current and former regular participants in the CoRE
Working Group meetings. This includes Göran Selander (mail to ACE WG mailing
list on 2022-03-20), Jim Schaad (see mail to ACE WG mailing list on 2020-03-
14), and Christian Amsüss(see mail to ACE WG mailing list on 2020-07-31).

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

The document registers 2 entries in the Sub-Parameter Registry for
application/aif+cbor and application/aif+json of the Media Type Sub-Parameter
Registries. The Registration Procedure for it is Specification Required.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation 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 RFC 8342?

This document does not contain a YANG module.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

I have performed checks of CBOR in diagnostic notation using the cbor.me
tool. Additionally I have checked the CDDL within the document using the Ruby
program cddlc. Results of these checks will be included in the shepherd’s
review. Lastly, I have learnt that the authors have received feedback related
to the CBOR diagnostic notation in the document and fixed that in the
editor’s copy (see [2]).

[2] https://github.com/ace-wg/ace-key-groupcomm-oscore/commit/21d60b86a25c59be42d64a443149a4ba02b27698

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes, based on the shepherd’s review and the other feedback this document has
received via the ACE WG mailing list and WG meetings, this document is ready
to be handed off to the responsible AD.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?

I have no specific additions.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The intended status as specified within this document is Standards Track.
Currently the Datatracker Intended RFC status is “None”, so presumably this
should be updated.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.

I have requested information specifically from the authors (and any other
party) regarding IPR. See my mail to the ACE WG mailing list on 2022-12-19
at [3]. No author or any other party disclosed any IPR.

[3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ace/-GvLBDeRo3ideuw3y9k2_DXnLcU/

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.

None of the authors have shown any unwillingness to be listed, or mentioned
this during my communications with them. The number of authors for this
document is 3.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There are warnings related to too long lines which the tools suggest can be
caused by non-ASCII characters, which is indeed the case. There were also
additional warnings due to presence of non-ASCII characters.

A number of warnings appeared due to outdated references which can be
expected as this document version is from 2022-09-05 and has not been re-
submitted since (although work has been done on the editor’s copy).
Similarly, warnings are also caused by the copyright year in the IETF Trust
and authors Copyright Line and the document date.

Furthermore the tool warns about 2 instances of lines with non-RFC6890-
compliant IPv4 addresses. The reason for this is unclear to me and it may be
a false positive. The tools mistakes some terms specified in the document
such as Toid, Tperm, and EC2 etc. as references when they are not.

Lastly, the tool warns about downrefs and obsolete references which I will
cover in the following points.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.

In my opinion the existing references are of suitable type.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?

All references are publically available documents.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

The following normative downrefs not present in the DOWNREF registry exist in
the document:

CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE): Initial Algorithms (RFC 9053).

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?

Two of the normative references are drafts:

Key Provisioning for Group Communication using ACE
(draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm). The status of this document is “Submitted to
IESG for Publication; Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway”.

Group OSCORE - Secure Group Communication for CoAP
(draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm). The status of this document is “WG
Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up”.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

Publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFC.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).

As part of the shepherd's review process I have checked all the criteria above
and this document fulfils them.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

The document establishes the IANA "Group OSCORE Roles" registry which uses
Expert Review procedure. The instructions for the Experts are clear and
listed in a separate section of the document. A suggestion for designated
experts would be to utilize the authors of this document.

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

Shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-oscore-15

## Document History

1.Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

This document has reached a broad agreement in the working group.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?

Based on reviewing conversations on the mailing list and minutes from ACE WG
meetings I have found no such decisions or points.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
so, please summarize 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.)

To my knowledge, no such action has been taken by anyone.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?

An implementation in Java of the content of the document is available at [1].
The implementation builds on Key Provisioning for Group Communication using
ACE (draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm) and ACE framework for Authentication and
Authorization (RFC9200), as the document subject to this write-up itself
does.

[1] https://bitbucket.org/marco-tiloca-sics/ace-java/

The existence of this implementation has been reported during ACE Working
Group meetings.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.

This document closely interacts with technologies being built within the CoRE
Working Group, specifically the Group OSCORE protocol
(draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm). Feedback and reviews to this document has
been received from current and former regular participants in the CoRE
Working Group meetings. This includes Göran Selander (mail to ACE WG mailing
list on 2022-03-20), Jim Schaad (see mail to ACE WG mailing list on 2020-03-
14), and Christian Amsüss(see mail to ACE WG mailing list on 2020-07-31).

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

The document registers 2 entries in the Sub-Parameter Registry for
application/aif+cbor and application/aif+json of the Media Type Sub-Parameter
Registries. The Registration Procedure for it is Specification Required.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation 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 RFC 8342?

This document does not contain a YANG module.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

I have performed checks of CBOR in diagnostic notation using the cbor.me
tool. Additionally I have checked the CDDL within the document using the Ruby
program cddlc. Results of these checks will be included in the shepherd’s
review. Lastly, I have learnt that the authors have received feedback related
to the CBOR diagnostic notation in the document and fixed that in the
editor’s copy (see [2]).

[2] https://github.com/ace-wg/ace-key-groupcomm-oscore/commit/21d60b86a25c59be42d64a443149a4ba02b27698

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes, based on the shepherd’s review and the other feedback this document has
received via the ACE WG mailing list and WG meetings, this document is ready
to be handed off to the responsible AD.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?

I have no specific additions.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The intended status as specified within this document is Standards Track.
Currently the Datatracker Intended RFC status is “None”, so presumably this
should be updated.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.

I have requested information specifically from the authors (and any other
party) regarding IPR. See my mail to the ACE WG mailing list on 2022-12-19
at [3]. No author or any other party disclosed any IPR.

[3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ace/-GvLBDeRo3ideuw3y9k2_DXnLcU/

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.

None of the authors have shown any unwillingness to be listed, or mentioned
this during my communications with them. The number of authors for this
document is 3.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There are warnings related to too long lines which the tools suggest can be
caused by non-ASCII characters, which is indeed the case. There were also
additional warnings due to presence of non-ASCII characters.

A number of warnings appeared due to outdated references which can be
expected as this document version is from 2022-09-05 and has not been re-
submitted since (although work has been done on the editor’s copy).
Similarly, warnings are also caused by the copyright year in the IETF Trust
and authors Copyright Line and the document date.

Furthermore the tool warns about 2 instances of lines with non-RFC6890-
compliant IPv4 addresses. The reason for this is unclear to me and it may be
a false positive. The tools mistakes some terms specified in the document
such as Toid, Tperm, and EC2 etc. as references when they are not.

Lastly, the tool warns about downrefs and obsolete references which I will
cover in the following points.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.

In my opinion the existing references are of suitable type.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?

All references are publically available documents.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

The following normative downrefs not present in the DOWNREF registry exist in
the document:

CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE): Initial Algorithms (RFC 9053).

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?

Two of the normative references are drafts:

Key Provisioning for Group Communication using ACE
(draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm). The status of this document is “Submitted to
IESG for Publication; Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway”.

Group OSCORE - Secure Group Communication for CoAP
(draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm). The status of this document is “WG
Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up”.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

Publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFC.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).

As part of the shepherd's review process I have checked all the criteria above
and this document fulfils them.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

The document establishes the IANA "Group OSCORE Roles" registry which uses
Expert Review procedure. The instructions for the Experts are clear and
listed in a separate section of the document. A suggestion for designated
experts would be to utilize the authors of this document.

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

Shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-oscore-15

## Document History

1.Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

This document has reached a broad agreement in the working group.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?

Based on reviewing conversations on the mailing list and minutes from ACE WG
meetings I have found no such decisions or points.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
so, please summarize 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.)

To my knowledge, no such action has been taken by anyone.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?

An implementation in Java of the content of the document is available at [1].
The implementation builds on Key Provisioning for Group Communication using
ACE (draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm) and ACE framework for Authentication and
Authorization (RFC9200), as the document subject to this write-up itself
does.

[1] https://bitbucket.org/marco-tiloca-sics/ace-java/

The existence of this implementation has been reported during ACE Working
Group meetings.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.

This document closely interacts with technologies being built within the CoRE
Working Group, specifically the Group OSCORE protocol
(draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm). Feedback and reviews to this document has
been received from current and former regular participants in the CoRE
Working Group meetings. This includes Göran Selander (mail to ACE WG mailing
list on 2022-03-20), Jim Schaad (see mail to ACE WG mailing list on 2020-03-
14), and Christian Amsüss(see mail to ACE WG mailing list on 2020-07-31).

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

The document registers 2 entries in the Sub-Parameter Registry for
application/aif+cbor and application/aif+json of the Media Type Sub-Parameter
Registries. The Registration Procedure for it is Specification Required.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation 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 RFC 8342?

This document does not contain a YANG module.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

I have performed checks of CBOR in diagnostic notation using the cbor.me
tool. Additionally I have checked the CDDL within the document using the Ruby
program cddlc. Results of these checks will be included in the shepherd’s
review. Lastly, I have learnt that the authors have received feedback related
to the CBOR diagnostic notation in the document and fixed that in the
editor’s copy (see [2]).

[2] https://github.com/ace-wg/ace-key-groupcomm-oscore/commit/21d60b86a25c59be42d64a443149a4ba02b27698

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes, based on the shepherd’s review and the other feedback this document has
received via the ACE WG mailing list and WG meetings, this document is ready
to be handed off to the responsible AD.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?

I have no specific additions.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The intended status as specified within this document is Standards Track.
Currently the Datatracker Intended RFC status is “None”, so presumably this
should be updated.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.

I have requested information specifically from the authors (and any other
party) regarding IPR. See my mail to the ACE WG mailing list on 2022-12-19
at [3]. No author or any other party disclosed any IPR.

[3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ace/-GvLBDeRo3ideuw3y9k2_DXnLcU/

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.

None of the authors have shown any unwillingness to be listed, or mentioned
this during my communications with them. The number of authors for this
document is 3.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There are warnings related to too long lines which the tools suggest can be
caused by non-ASCII characters, which is indeed the case. There were also
additional warnings due to presence of non-ASCII characters.

A number of warnings appeared due to outdated references which can be
expected as this document version is from 2022-09-05 and has not been re-
submitted since (although work has been done on the editor’s copy).
Similarly, warnings are also caused by the copyright year in the IETF Trust
and authors Copyright Line and the document date.

Furthermore the tool warns about 2 instances of lines with non-RFC6890-
compliant IPv4 addresses. The reason for this is unclear to me and it may be
a false positive. The tools mistakes some terms specified in the document
such as Toid, Tperm, and EC2 etc. as references when they are not.

Lastly, the tool warns about downrefs and obsolete references which I will
cover in the following points.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.

In my opinion the existing references are of suitable type.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?

All references are publically available documents.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

The following normative downrefs not present in the DOWNREF registry exist in
the document:

CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE): Initial Algorithms (RFC 9053).

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?

Two of the normative references are drafts:

Key Provisioning for Group Communication using ACE
(draft-ietf-ace-key- groupcomm). The status of this document is “Submitted to
IESG for Publication; Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway”.

Group OSCORE - Secure Group Communication for CoAP
(draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm). The status of this document is “WG
Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up”.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

Publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFC.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).

As part of the shepherd's review process I have checked all the criteria above
and this document fulfils them.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

The document establishes the IANA "Group OSCORE Roles" registry which uses
Expert Review procedure. The instructions for the Experts are clear and
listed in a separate section of the document. A suggestion for designated
experts would be to utilize the authors of this document.

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

Shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-oscore-15

## Document History

1.Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

This document has reached a broad agreement in the working group.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?

Based on reviewing conversations on the mailing list and minutes from ACE WG
meetings I have found no such decisions or points.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
so, please summarize 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.)

To my knowledge, no such action has been taken by anyone.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?

An implementation in Java of the content of the document is available at [1].
The implementation builds on Key Provisioning for Group Communication using
ACE (draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm) and ACE framework for Authentication and
Authorization (RFC9200), as the document subject to this write-up itself
does.

[1] https://bitbucket.org/marco-tiloca-sics/ace-java/

The existence of this implementation has been reported during ACE Working
Group meetings.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.

This document closely interacts with technologies being built within the CoRE
Working Group, specifically the Group OSCORE protocol (draft-ietf-core-oscore-
groupcomm). Feedback and reviews to this document has been received from
current and former regular participants in the CoRE Working Group meetings.
This includes Göran Selander (mail to ACE WG mailing list on 2022-03-20), Jim
Schaad (see mail to ACE WG mailing list on 2020-03-14), and Christian Amsüss
(see mail to ACE WG mailing list on 2020-07-31).

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

The document registers 2 entries in the Sub-Parameter Registry for
application/aif+cbor and application/aif+json of the Media Type Sub-Parameter
Registries. The Registration Procedure for it is Specification Required.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation 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 RFC 8342?

This document does not contain a YANG module.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

I have performed checks of CBOR in diagnostic notation using the cbor.me
tool. Additionally I have checked the CDDL within the document using the Ruby
program cddlc. Results of these checks will be included in the shepherd’s
review. Lastly, I have learnt that the authors have received feedback related
to the CBOR diagnostic notation in the document and fixed that in the
editor’s copy (see [2]).

[2] https://github.com/ace-wg/ace-key-groupcomm-oscore/commit/21d60b86a25c59be42d64a443149a4ba02b27698

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes, based on the shepherd’s review and the other feedback this document has
received via the ACE WG mailing list and WG meetings, this document is ready
to be handed off to the responsible AD.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?

I have no specific additions.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The intended status as specified within this document is Standards Track.
Currently the Datatracker Intended RFC status is “None”, so presumably this
should be updated.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.

I have requested information specifically from the authors (and any other
party) regarding IPR. See my mail to the ACE WG mailing list on 2022-12-19
at [3]. No author or any other party disclosed any IPR.

[3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ace/-GvLBDeRo3ideuw3y9k2_DXnLcU/

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.

None of the authors have shown any unwillingness to be listed, or mentioned
this during my communications with them. The number of authors for this
document is 3.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There are warnings related to too long lines which the tools suggest can be
caused by non-ASCII characters, which is indeed the case. There were also
additional warnings due to presence of non-ASCII characters.

A number of warnings appeared due to outdated references which can be
expected as this document version is from 2022-09-05 and has not been re-
submitted since (although work has been done on the editor’s copy).
Similarly, warnings are also caused by the copyright year in the IETF Trust
and authors Copyright Line and the document date.

Furthermore the tool warns about 2 instances of lines with non-RFC6890-
compliant IPv4 addresses. The reason for this is unclear to me and it may be
a false positive. The tools mistakes some terms specified in the document
such as Toid, Tperm, and EC2 etc. as references when they are not.

Lastly, the tool warns about downrefs and obsolete references which I will
cover in the following points.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.

In my opinion the existing references are of suitable type.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?

All references are publically available documents.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

The following normative downrefs not present in the DOWNREF registry exist in
the document:

CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE): Initial Algorithms (RFC 9053).

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?

Two of the normative references are drafts:

Key Provisioning for Group Communication using ACE (draft-ietf-ace-key-
groupcomm). The status of this document is “Submitted to IESG for
Publication; Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway”.

Group OSCORE - Secure Group Communication for CoAP (draft-ietf-core-oscore-
groupcomm). The status of this document is “WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-
Up”.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

Publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFC.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).

As part of the shepherd's review process I have checked all the criteria above
and this document fulfils them.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

The document establishes the IANA "Group OSCORE Roles" registry which uses
Expert Review procedure. The instructions for the Experts are clear and
listed in a separate section of the document. A suggestion for designated
experts would be to utilize the authors of this document.

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

Shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-oscore-15

## Document History

1.Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

This document has reached a broad agreement in the working group.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?

Based on reviewing conversations on the mailing list and minutes from ACE WG
meetings I have found no such decisions or points.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
so, please summarize 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.)

To my knowledge, no such action has been taken by anyone.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?

An implementation in Java of the content of the document is available at [1].
The implementation builds on Key Provisioning for Group Communication using
ACE (draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm) and ACE framework for Authentication and
Authorization (RFC9200), as the document subject to this write-up itself
does.

[1] https://bitbucket.org/marco-tiloca-sics/ace-java/

The existence of this implementation has been reported during ACE Working
Group meetings.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.

This document closely interacts with technologies being built within the CoRE
Working Group, specifically the Group OSCORE protocol (draft-ietf-core-oscore-
groupcomm). Feedback and reviews to this document has been received from
current and former regular participants in the CoRE Working Group meetings.
This includes Göran Selander (mail to ACE WG mailing list on 2022-03-20), Jim
Schaad (see mail to ACE WG mailing list on 2020-03-14), and Christian Amsüss
(see mail to ACE WG mailing list on 2020-07-31).

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

The document registers 2 entries in the Sub-Parameter Registry for
application/aif+cbor and application/aif+json of the Media Type Sub-Parameter
Registries. The Registration Procedure for it is Specification Required.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation 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 RFC 8342?

This document does not contain a YANG module.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

I have performed checks of CBOR in diagnostic notation using the cbor.me
tool. Additionally I have checked the CDDL within the document using the Ruby
program cddlc. Results of these checks will be included in the shepherd’s
review. Lastly, I have learnt that the authors have received feedback related
to the CBOR diagnostic notation in the document and fixed that in the
editor’s copy (see [2]).

[2] https://github.com/ace-wg/ace-key-groupcomm-oscore/commit/21d60b86a25c59be42d64a443149a4ba02b27698

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes, based on the shepherd’s review and the other feedback this document has
received via the ACE WG mailing list and WG meetings, this document is ready
to be handed off to the responsible AD.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?

I have no specific additions.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The intended status as specified within this document is Standards Track.
Currently the Datatracker Intended RFC status is “None”, so presumably this
should be updated.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.

I have requested information specifically from the authors (and any other
party) regarding IPR. See my mail to the ACE WG mailing list on 2022-12-19
at [3]. No author or any other party disclosed any IPR.

[3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ace/-GvLBDeRo3ideuw3y9k2_DXnLcU/

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.

None of the authors have shown any unwillingness to be listed, or mentioned
this during my communications with them. The number of authors for this
document is 3.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There are warnings related to too long lines which the tools suggest can be
caused by non-ASCII characters, which is indeed the case. There were also
additional warnings due to presence of non-ASCII characters.

A number of warnings appeared due to outdated references which can be
expected as this document version is from 2022-09-05 and has not been re-
submitted since (although work has been done on the editor’s copy).
Similarly, warnings are also caused by the copyright year in the IETF Trust
and authors Copyright Line and the document date.

Furthermore the tool warns about 2 instances of lines with non-RFC6890-
compliant IPv4 addresses. The reason for this is unclear to me and it may be
a false positive. The tools mistakes some terms specified in the document
such as Toid, Tperm, and EC2 etc. as references when they are not.

Lastly, the tool warns about downrefs and obsolete references which I will
cover in the following points.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.

In my opinion the existing references are of suitable type.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?

All references are publically available documents.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

The following normative downrefs not present in the DOWNREF registry exist in
the document:

CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE): Initial Algorithms (RFC 9053).

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?

Two of the normative references are drafts:

Key Provisioning for Group Communication using ACE (draft-ietf-ace-key-
groupcomm). The status of this document is “Submitted to IESG for
Publication; Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway”.

Group OSCORE - Secure Group Communication for CoAP (draft-ietf-core-oscore-
groupcomm). The status of this document is “WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-
Up”.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

Publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFC.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).

As part of the shepherd's review process I have checked all the criteria above
and this document fulfils them.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

The document establishes the IANA "Group OSCORE Roles" registry which uses
Expert Review procedure. The instructions for the Experts are clear and
listed in a separate section of the document. A suggestion for designated
experts would be to utilize the authors of this document.