Skip to main content

Key Provisioning for Group Communication using ACE
draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-19

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2024-04-30
19 Marco Tiloca New version available: draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-19.txt
2024-04-30
19 Marco Tiloca New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Marco Tiloca)
2024-04-30
19 Marco Tiloca Uploaded new revision
2024-04-25
18 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2024-04-25
18 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from IANA
2024-04-25
18 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2024-04-24
18 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2024-04-22
18 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2024-04-18
18 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from On Hold
2024-04-11
18 (System) RFC Editor state changed to IANA from EDIT
2024-01-26
18 Tero Kivinen Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events'
2024-01-26
18 Tero Kivinen Assignment of request for Last Call review by SECDIR to Derek Atkins was marked no-response
2024-01-26
18 Gunter Van de Velde Request closed, assignment withdrawn: Jon Mitchell Last Call OPSDIR review
2024-01-26
18 Gunter Van de Velde Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events': Cleaning up stale OPSDIR queue
2024-01-22
18 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2024-01-22
18 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2024-01-22
18 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2024-01-19
18 (System) IANA Action state changed to On Hold from In Progress
2024-01-19
18 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2024-01-19
18 (System) Removed all action holders (IESG state changed)
2024-01-19
18 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2024-01-19
18 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2024-01-19
18 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2024-01-19
18 Cindy Morgan Ballot approval text was generated
2024-01-18
18 Paul Wouters revised ID was submitted, resolving ballot comments and directorate reviews. It also spend two weeks in the ACE WG soliciting feedback.
2024-01-18
18 Paul Wouters IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup
2024-01-16
18 (System) Changed action holders to Paul Wouters (IESG state changed)
2024-01-16
18 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed
2024-01-16
18 Marco Tiloca New version available: draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-18.txt
2024-01-16
18 Marco Tiloca New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Marco Tiloca)
2024-01-16
18 Marco Tiloca Uploaded new revision
2024-01-11
17 Paul Wouters IESG feedback requires a minor updated version
2024-01-11
17 (System) Changed action holders to Francesca Palombini, Marco Tiloca (IESG state changed)
2024-01-11
17 Paul Wouters IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup
2023-11-30
17 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation
2023-11-30
17 Éric Vyncke
[Ballot comment]
I am balloting ABSTAIN as I had no time to review it on my own, but I am trusting the IoT-directorate "almost ready" …
[Ballot comment]
I am balloting ABSTAIN as I had no time to review it on my own, but I am trusting the IoT-directorate "almost ready" review by Dave Thaler:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-17-iotdir-telechat-thaler-2023-11-23/

Dave's review has identified issues in the security and IoT domains that I could not verify (lack of time) but it would help a lot if the authors replied to Dave's review.
2023-11-30
17 Éric Vyncke [Ballot Position Update] New position, Abstain, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke
2023-11-29
17 Andrew Alston [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Andrew Alston
2023-11-29
17 John Scudder [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for John Scudder
2023-11-29
17 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK
2023-11-29
17 Warren Kumari
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for writing this document - I found it both useful, and an easy read.

I do have a nit / readability …
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for writing this document - I found it both useful, and an easy read.

I do have a nit / readability suggestion:

"New keying material is generated and distributed to the group upon
membership changes (rekeying), if the application requires backward
security (i.e., new group members must be prevented from accessing
communications in the group prior to their joining) and forward
security (i.e., former group members must be prevented from
accessing communications in the group after their leaving)."

I found this wording confusing - I think that it is the comma after "upon
membership changes (rekeying)". This initially sounds like "new keys are generated on every membership change. If the application requires backward security then [something else / something additional". I *think* that just dropping the comma fixes it...


You also have a typo: "It is REQUIRED of application profiles of this specificaton to" - specification.
2023-11-29
17 Warren Kumari [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari
2023-11-28
17 David Dong IANA Experts State changed to Expert Reviews OK from Reviews assigned
2023-11-28
17 David Dong
The OAuth Parameters CBOR Mappings, the CoAP Content-Formats, and the OAuth Parameters registrations have been approved. Some comments for the Interface Description (if=) Link Target …
The OAuth Parameters CBOR Mappings, the CoAP Content-Formats, and the OAuth Parameters registrations have been approved. Some comments for the Interface Description (if=) Link Target Attribute Values registration:

The registration of this if= type is fundamentally appropriate.
However, there are some aspects of its description that could use improvement.

* The description uses the term ‘ace group’ to stand for ace.group. That could be confusing, but probably will not lead to interoperability problems.

* The description could be pointing to Section 4.1 (of course, a search will also find that section).

* Section 4.1 defines a number of resources. Which of these is the one that the link marked if= should point to? One might think that it is the one named /ace-group as an example, and not the individual ones named /ace-group/GROUPNAME. However, the examples in draft-tiloca-core-oscore-discovery indicate otherwise.
It would be preferable to make the answer to this question explicit in ace-key-groupcomm (an example for such a link in ace-key-groupcomm would also help).
Deferring much of the actual definition of the if= type to draft-tiloca-core-oscore-discovery while already registering it here does not work very well for this specification reader.
2023-11-28
17 Martin Duke
[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Vidhi Goel for the TSVART review.

(2) "If it consists of an explicit entity such as a pub-sub Broker or a …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Vidhi Goel for the TSVART review.

(2) "If it consists of an explicit entity such as a pub-sub Broker or a message relayer, the Dispatcher is comparable to an untrusted on-path intermediary, and as such it is able to read the messages sent by Clients in the group."

Is this accurate? Why does the Dispatcher need the group key to relay messages?

(3.3) s/since it allows to ask/since it allows the client to ask
2023-11-28
17 Martin Duke [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Duke
2023-11-28
17 Zaheduzzaman Sarker
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for working on this document.

Thanks Vidhi Goel for the TSVART review. However, I have noticed this review didn't get any responses …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for working on this document.

Thanks Vidhi Goel for the TSVART review. However, I have noticed this review didn't get any responses from the authors or wg. Please respond.

I have hard time understanding the example used for individual keying material. what is this "member identifier" ? where is this defined?
2023-11-28
17 Zaheduzzaman Sarker [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker
2023-11-28
17 Robert Wilton [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Wilton
2023-11-24
17 Erik Kline
[Ballot comment]
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-17
CC @ekline

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Comments …
[Ballot comment]
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-17
CC @ekline

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Comments

### S6

* What is the real meaning behind:

  The KDC can perform a group rekeying before the current group keying
  material expires, unless it is acceptable or there are reasons to
  temporarily pause secure communications in the group, following the
  expiration of the current keying material.

  Specifically: when is it acceptable to "pause secure communications"?
2023-11-24
17 Erik Kline [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline
2023-11-23
17 Dave Thaler Request for Telechat review by IOTDIR Completed: Almost Ready. Reviewer: Dave Thaler. Sent review to list.
2023-11-21
17 David Dong The OAuth Parameters CBOR Mappings, the CoAP Content-Formats, and the OAuth Parameters registrations have been approved.
2023-11-20
17 Jim Guichard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jim Guichard
2023-11-17
17 Roman Danyliw
[Ballot comment]
** Section 1.1.  Per the definition of “Group name” and GROUPNAME.  The latter is defined as a “text string used in a URIs”.  …
[Ballot comment]
** Section 1.1.  Per the definition of “Group name” and GROUPNAME.  The latter is defined as a “text string used in a URIs”.  The former has no definition beyond saying it is an identifier.  Is it not a text string?

** Section 1.1.
  *  Individual keying material: information exclusively pertaining to
      a group member, as associated with its group membership and
      related to other keying material and parameters used in the group.
      For example, this can be a member identifier that is unique within
      the group. 

-- unlike group and node identifier, member identifier is not defined

-- how is a member identifier an example of “keying material”?  Is it an identifier for a key?

** Section 2.  Per the comment “Defined in the ACE framework” in Figure 2, which framework is this text referencing?  This document?  RFC9200?

** Section 3.1.  Editorial
  *  'scope', specifying the name of the groups that the Client
      requests to access,

Should this be “name_s_ of the groups ...”?  Otherwise, it reads as if there is a single name for a collection of groups.

** Section 3.1

  *  'audience', with an identifier of the KDC.

The definition of audience from Section 5.8.1 of RFC9200 points to RFC8693 (OAuth’s definition of audience).  It says:

==[ snip ]==
The logical name of the target service where the client intends to use the requested security token. This serves a purpose similar to the resource parameter but with the client providing a logical name for the target service. Interpretation of the name requires that the value be something that both the client and the authorization server understand.
==[ snip ]==

Does the application profile have to specify the semantics of this audience value (just like the scope parameter)?

** Section 5.
  2.  The node has been found compromised or is suspected so.

What triggers this behavior in #2?  How does the KDC know about compromise?  Can Clients tell it that?  Can a Client evict another Client?

** Section 6.2.1.  Reading this text as normative guidance seemed odd since the parent section 6.2 stated that the specifics of one-to-many is effectively out of scope and this document only provides high level guidance.

** Section  10.
  Security considerations are inherited from the ACE framework
  [RFC9200], and from the specific transport profile of ACE used
  between the Clients and the KDC, e.g., [RFC9202] and [RFC9203].

And from application profiles too which specify the details of the keys and tokens?

** Section 10

  Unless otherwise defined by an application profile of this
  specification, the KDC SHOULD renew the group keying material upon a
  group membership change.

...

  Instead, the KDC might
  rekey the group after a minimum number of group members have joined
  or left within a given time interval, or after a maximum amount of
  time since the last group rekeying was completed, or yet during
  predictable network inactivity periods.

The first sentence seems to be encouraging rekeying but subsequent text points out that this might not be reasonable.  Should the initial “SHOULD” text be harmonized with this other more nuanced guidance?

** Typos
-- Section 1.  Typo. s/recommeded/recommended/
-- Section 2.  Typo. s/membrs/members/
-- Section 3.1. Typo. s/ specificaton/specification/
-- Section 3.3.1.  Typo. s/acces/access/
-- Section 4.  Typo. s/trasferring/transferring/
2023-11-17
17 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw
2023-11-06
17 David Dong
The OAuth Parameters CBOR Mappings registrations have been approved. The CoAP Content-Formats registration have also been approved with a nit: if the authors want the …
The OAuth Parameters CBOR Mappings registrations have been approved. The CoAP Content-Formats registration have also been approved with a nit: if the authors want the entry names can be updated per the erratum on RFC 7252, i.e. change to: Content Type: application/ace-groupcomm+cbor Content Coding: -
2023-11-04
17 Ines Robles Request for Telechat review by IOTDIR is assigned to Dave Thaler
2023-11-04
17 Ines Robles Assignment of request for Telechat review by IOTDIR to Geoffrey Mulligan was rejected
2023-11-02
17 Ines Robles Request for Telechat review by IOTDIR is assigned to Geoffrey Mulligan
2023-11-02
17 Ines Robles Assignment of request for Telechat review by IOTDIR to Terry Manderson was rejected
2023-10-31
17 Henry Thompson Request for Last Call review by ARTART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Henry Thompson. Sent review to list.
2023-10-31
17 Ines Robles Request for Telechat review by IOTDIR is assigned to Terry Manderson
2023-10-31
17 Mališa Vučinić Assignment of request for Telechat review by IOTDIR to Mališa Vučinić was rejected
2023-10-30
17 Ines Robles Request for Telechat review by IOTDIR is assigned to Mališa Vučinić
2023-10-30
17 Éric Vyncke Requested Telechat review by IOTDIR
2023-10-23
17 Cindy Morgan Placed on agenda for telechat - 2023-11-30
2023-10-23
17 Francesca Palombini [Ballot comment]
It is mine
2023-10-23
17 Francesca Palombini [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded for Francesca Palombini
2023-10-22
17 Paul Wouters Ballot has been issued
2023-10-22
17 Paul Wouters Ballot writeup was changed
2023-10-22
17 Paul Wouters Ballot has been issued
2023-10-22
17 Paul Wouters [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Paul Wouters
2023-10-22
17 Paul Wouters Created "Approve" ballot
2023-10-22
17 Paul Wouters IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2023-10-20
17 David Dong
The CoAP Content-Formats registration is approved with a nit:
Nit: if the authors want the entry names can be updated per the erratum on RFC …
The CoAP Content-Formats registration is approved with a nit:
Nit: if the authors want the entry names can be updated per the erratum on RFC 7252, i.e. change to:
Content Type: application/ace-groupcomm+cbor
Content Coding: -
2023-10-20
17 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2023-10-19
17 David Dong IANA Experts State changed to Reviews assigned
2023-10-19
17 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed
2023-10-19
17 David Dong
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-17. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-17. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA has a question about the tenth action requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document. IANA also has a comment regarding the Description for one of the registrations in the ninth action requested.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are twelve actions which we must complete.

First, in the application namespace of the Media Types registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/

a single new registration will be made as follows:

Name: ace-groupcomm+cbor
Template: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Second, in the CoAP Content-Formats registry in the Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Parameters registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/core-parameters/

a single new registration will be made as follows:

Content Type: application/ace-groupcomm+cbor
Content Coding:
ID: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA understands that this registration will be from the 0-255 range in the Content-Formats registry. As this requests a registration in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

Third, in the OAuth Parameters registry in the OAuth Parameters registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/oauth-parameters/

two new parameters will be registered as follows:

Name: sign_info
Parameter Usage Location: client-rs request, rs-client response
Change Controller: IETF
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: kdcchallenge
Parameter Usage Location: rs-client response
Change Controller: IETF
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this also requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

Fourth, in the OAuth Parameters CBOR Mappings registry in the Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ace/

two new mappings will be registered as follows:

Name: sign_info
CBOR Key: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Value Type: Simple value "null" / array
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: kdcchallenge
CBOR Key: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Value Type: Byte string
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

We note that the authors have requested for values in the -256 to 255 range.

As this also requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

Fifth, in the Interface Description (if=) Link Target Attribute Values registry in the Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Parameters registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/core-parameters/

a single new registration is to be made as follows:

Value: ace.group
Description: The 'ace group' interface is used to provision keying material and related information and policies to members of a group using the ACE framework.
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Note:

As this also requests a registration in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

Sixth, a new registry is to be created called the ACE Groupcomm Parameters registry. The new registry will be located in the Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ace/

The registry will have four columns: Name, CBOR Key, CBOR Type, and Reference. The registration policy for the new registry is as follows:

Integer values less than -65536: Private Use
Integer values from -65536 to -257: Specification Required
Integer values from -256 to 255: Standards Action With Expert Review
Integer values from 256 to 65535: Specification Required
Integer values greater than 65535: Expert Review
Text strings of length 1: Standards Action With Expert Review
Text strings of length 2: Specification Required
Text strings of length greater than 2: Expert Review

There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows:

| Name | CBOR Key | CBOR Type | Reference |
+------+-----------+------------+-----------+
| error | TBD | int | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| error_description | TBD | tstr | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| gid | TBD | array | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| gname | TBD | array of tstr | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| guri | TBD | array of tstr | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| scope | TBD | bstr | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| get_creds | TBD | array / Simple value "null" | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| client_cred | TBD | bstr | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| cnonce | TBD | bstr | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| client_cred_verify | TBD | bstr | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| creds_repo | TBD | tstr | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| control_uri | TBD | tstr | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| gkty | TBD | int / tstr | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| key | TBD | See the "ACE Groupcomm Key Types" registry | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| num | TBD | int | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| ace_groupcomm_profile | TBD | int | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| exp | TBD | int | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| creds | TBD | array | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| peer_roles | TBD | array | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| peer_identifiers | TBD | array | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| group_policies | TBD | map | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| kdc_cred | TBD | bstr | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| kdc_nonce | TBD | bstr | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| kdc_cred_verify | TBD | bstr | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| rekeying_scheme | TBD | int | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| mgt_key_material | TBD | bstr | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| control_group_uri | TBD | tstr | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| sign_info | TBD | array | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| kdcchallenge | TBD | bstr | [ RFC-to-be ] |

Seventh, a new registry is to be created called the ACE Groupcomm Key Types registry. The new registry will be located in the Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ace/

The registry will have five columns: Name, Key Type Value, Profile, Description, and Reference. The registration policy for the new registry is as follows:

Integer values less than -65536: Private Use
Integer values from -65536 to -257: Specification Required
Integer values from -256 to 255: Standards Action With Expert Review
Integer values from 256 to 65535: Specification Required
Integer values greater than 65535: Expert Review
Text strings of length 1: Standards Action With Expert Review
Text strings of length 2: Specification Required
Text strings of length greater than 2: Expert Review

There is an initial registration in the new registry as follows:

Name: Reserved
Key Type Value: 0
Profile:
Description: This value is reserved
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Eighth, a new registry is to be created called the ACE Groupcomm Profiles registry. The new registry will be located in the Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ace/

The registry will have four columns: Name, Description, CBOR Value, and Reference. The registration policy for the new registry is as follows:

Integer values less than -65536: Private Use
Integer values from -65536 to -257: Specification Required
Integer values from -256 to 255: Standards Action With Expert Review
Integer values from 256 to 65535: Specification Required
Integer values greater than 65535: Expert Review

There is an initial registration in the new registry as follows:

Name: Reserved
Description: This value is reserved
CBOR Value: 0
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Ninth, a new registry is to be created called the ACE Groupcomm Policies registry. The new registry will be located in the Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ace/

The registry will have five columns: Name, CBOR Label, CBOR Type. Description, and Reference. The registration policy for the new registry is as follows:

Integer values less than -65536: Private Use
Integer values from -65536 to -257: Specification Required
Integer values from -256 to 255: Standards Action With Expert Review
Integer values from 256 to 65535: Specification Required
Integer values greater than 65535: Expert Review
Text strings of length 1: Standards Action With Expert Review
Text strings of length greater than 2: Expert Review
Text strings of length 2: Specification Required

There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows:

Name: Sequence Number Synchronization Method
CBOR label: TBD
CBOR type: tstr/int
Description: Method for recipient group members to synchronize with sequence numbers of sender group members. Its value is taken from the 'Value' column of the Sequence Number Synchronization Method registry
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA Comment -> In the IANA Considerations section of this document, there appears to be an extra "of" in the first sentence of the Description for this registration.

Name: Key Update Check Interval
CBOR label: TBD
CBOR type: int
Description: Polling interval in seconds, for group members to check at the KDC if the latest group keying material is the one that they store
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: Expiration Delta
CBOR label: TBD
CBOR type: uint
Description: Number of seconds from 'exp' until a UTC date/time, after which group members MUST stop using the group keying material that they store to decrypt incoming messages
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Tenth, a new registry is to be created called the Sequence Number Synchronization Methods registry. The new registry will be located in the Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ace/

The registry will have four columns: Name, Value, Description, and Reference. The registration policy for the new registry is as follows:

Integer values less than -65536: Private Use
Integer values from -65536 to -257: Specification Required
Integer values from -256 to 255: Standards Action With Expert Review
Integer values from 256 to 65535: Specification Required
Integer values greater than 65535: Expert Review
Text strings of length 1: Standards Action With Expert Review
Text strings of length 2: Specification Required
Text strings of length greater than 2: Expert Review

IANA Question --> Are there any initial values to populate the new Sequence Number Synchronization Methods registry?

Eleventh, a new registry is to be created called the ACE Groupcomm Errors registry. The new registry will be located in the Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ace/

The registry will have three columns: Value, Description and Reference. The registration policy for the new registry is as follows:

Integer values less than -65536: Private Use
Integer values from -65536 to -257: Specification Required
Integer values from -256 to 255: Standards Action With Expert Review
Integer values from 256 to 65535: Specification Required
Integer values greater than 65535: Expert Review

There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows:

| Value | Description | Reference |
+------+------------+-----------+
| 0 | Operation permitted only to group members | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 1 | Request inconsistent with the current roles | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 2 | Authentication credential incompatible with the group configuration | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 3 | Invalid proof-of-possession evidence | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 4 | No available node identifiers | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 5 | Group membership terminated | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 6 | Group deleted | [ RFC-to-be ] |

Twelveth, a new registry is to be created called the ACE Groupcomm Rekeying Schemes registry. The new registry will be located in the Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ace/

The registry will have four columns: Value, Name, Description and Reference. The registration policy for the new registry is as follows:

Integer values less than -65536: Private Use
Integer values from -65536 to -257: Specification Required
Integer values from -256 to 255: Standards Action With Expert Review
Integer values from 256 to 65535: Specification Required
Integer values greater than 65535: Expert Review

There is an initial registration in the new registry as follows:

Value: 0
Name: Point-to-Point
Description: The KDC individually targets each node to rekey, using the pairwise secure communication association with that node
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

We understand that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

NOTE: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist
2023-10-13
17 Vidhi Goel
Request for Last Call review by TSVART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Vidhi Goel. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier …
Request for Last Call review by TSVART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Vidhi Goel. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.
2023-10-13
17 Vidhi Goel Request for Last Call review by TSVART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Vidhi Goel.
2023-10-13
17 Thomas Fossati Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Thomas Fossati. Sent review to list.
2023-10-12
17 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Derek Atkins
2023-10-12
17 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Thomas Fossati
2023-10-12
17 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jon Mitchell
2023-10-10
17 Magnus Westerlund Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Vidhi Goel
2023-10-10
17 Kyle Rose Assignment of request for Last Call review by TSVART to Kyle Rose was rejected
2023-10-09
17 Magnus Westerlund Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Kyle Rose
2023-10-09
17 Magnus Westerlund Assignment of request for Last Call review by TSVART to Gorry Fairhurst was rejected
2023-10-09
17 Magnus Westerlund Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Gorry Fairhurst
2023-10-07
17 Barry Leiba Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Henry Thompson
2023-10-06
17 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2023-10-06
17 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-10-20):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: ace-chairs@ietf.org, ace@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm@ietf.org, mglt.ietf@gmail.com, paul.wouters@aiven.io …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-10-20):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: ace-chairs@ietf.org, ace@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm@ietf.org, mglt.ietf@gmail.com, paul.wouters@aiven.io
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Key Provisioning for Group Communication using ACE) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Authentication and Authorization for
Constrained Environments WG (ace) to consider the following document: - 'Key
Provisioning for Group Communication using ACE'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2023-10-20. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document defines how to use the Authentication and Authorization
  for Constrained Environments (ACE) framework to distribute keying
  material and configuration parameters for secure group communication.
  Candidate group members acting as Clients and authorized to join a
  group can do so by interacting with a Key Distribution Center (KDC)
  acting as Resource Server, from which they obtain the keying material
  to communicate with other group members.  While defining general
  message formats as well as the interface and operations available at
  the KDC, this document supports different approaches and protocols
  for secure group communication.  Therefore, details are delegated to
  separate application profiles of this document, as specialized
  instances that target a particular group communication approach and
  define how communications in the group are protected.  Compliance
  requirements for such application profiles are also specified.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    rfc7967: Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) Option for No Server Response (Informational - Independent Submission)
    rfc9053: CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE): Initial Algorithms (Informational - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF))



2023-10-06
17 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2023-10-06
17 Paul Wouters Last call was requested
2023-10-06
17 Paul Wouters Ballot approval text was generated
2023-10-06
17 Paul Wouters Ballot writeup was generated
2023-10-06
17 Paul Wouters IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested::AD Followup
2023-10-06
17 Paul Wouters Last call announcement was generated
2023-10-06
17 (System) Changed action holders to Paul Wouters (IESG state changed)
2023-10-06
17 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed
2023-10-06
17 Marco Tiloca New version available: draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-17.txt
2023-10-06
17 Marco Tiloca New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Marco Tiloca)
2023-10-06
17 Marco Tiloca Uploaded new revision
2023-08-31
16 (System) Changed action holders to Francesca Palombini, Marco Tiloca (IESG state changed)
2023-08-31
16 Paul Wouters IESG state changed to Publication Requested::Revised I-D Needed from Publication Requested
2022-09-05
16 Marco Tiloca New version available: draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-16.txt
2022-09-05
16 Marco Tiloca New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Marco Tiloca)
2022-09-05
16 Marco Tiloca Uploaded new revision
2022-03-23
15 Amy Vezza Shepherding AD changed to Paul Wouters
2022-02-02
15 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?

The type is standard track which is appropriated as it defines a framework on which profile will be derived and need to be inter-operable.

(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:

This document defines how to use the Authentication and Authorization
  for Constrained Environments (ACE) framework to distribute keying
  material and configuration parameters for secure group communication.
  Candidate group members acting as Clients and authorized to join a
  group can do so by interacting with a Key Distribution Center (KDC)
  acting as Resource Server, from which they obtain the keying material
  to communicate with other group members.  While defining general
  message formats as well as the interface and operations available at
  the KDC, this document supports different approaches and protocols
  for secure group communication.  Therefore, details are delegated to
  separate application profiles of this document, as specialized
  instances that target a particular group communication approach and
  define how communications in the group are protected.  Compliance
  requirements for such application profiles are also specified.

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.

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 controversy.

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?

This draft in itself cannot be implemented. The API and message template formats that it defines have to be instantiated by its profiles (such as key-groupcomm-oscore), which can rather be implemented. The latest has been implemented in the java ACE implementation for Californium
https://bitbucket.org/marco-tiloca-sics/ace-java/


Personnel:

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

Daniel Migault is the document shepherd and Benjamin Kaduk is the responsible 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.

I reviewed some former version of this document and requested some other reviewers to go through the various versions. I believe the document is ready.

(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.

(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?

yes, confirmation has been made on the mailing list

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

(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?

I believe we have been to a sufficient number of reviews to declare consenus.

(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.

Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '01' on line 1264

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '02' on line 1264

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-04) exists of draft-ietf-ace-aif-03

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft:
    draft-ietf-ace-aif (ref. 'I-D.ietf-ace-aif')

  -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref.
    'I-D.ietf-cose-countersign'

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft:
    draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs (ref. 'I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs')

  -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref.
    'I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct'

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 7967


    Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 5 comments (--).

    Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
    the items above.

(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 document contains a media type, uris but this is pretty much mainstream in this group, so I do not believe additional reviews are needed.

(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?

the document is waiting for:
*  -aif that has already been sent to the IESG
* -ace-oauth-authz in the RFC editor queue
* -cose-rfc8152bis-struct in the RFC Editor queue

I think it would be good to have key-groupcom and key-groupcom-oscore being shipped together and the latter is in WGLC.

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


possible downref are:
* -aif ( now moved to standard track)
* -cose-countersign which is standard track but in a draft state
* -cose-rfc8152bis-struct whihc is standard track but in a draft state
* -cose-rfc8152bis-algs which is informational as it describes algorithms


(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 IANA section seems correct.

(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.

the following registries are to be created.:
*  ACE Groupcomm Parameters
* ACE Groupcomm Key Types
* ACE Groupcomm Profiles
* ACE Groupcomm Policies
* Sequence Number Synchronization Methods
*  ACE Scope Semantics
* ACE Groupcomm Errors
* ACE Groupcomm Rekeying Schemes

Marco  Tiloca, Cigdem Sengul are probably good candidates

(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?

na
2022-02-02
15 Daniel Migault Responsible AD changed to Benjamin Kaduk
2022-02-02
15 Daniel Migault IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead
2022-02-02
15 Daniel Migault IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2022-02-02
15 Daniel Migault IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2022-02-02
15 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?

The type is standard track which is appropriated as it defines a framework on which profile will be derived and need to be inter-operable.

(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:

This document defines how to use the Authentication and Authorization
  for Constrained Environments (ACE) framework to distribute keying
  material and configuration parameters for secure group communication.
  Candidate group members acting as Clients and authorized to join a
  group can do so by interacting with a Key Distribution Center (KDC)
  acting as Resource Server, from which they obtain the keying material
  to communicate with other group members.  While defining general
  message formats as well as the interface and operations available at
  the KDC, this document supports different approaches and protocols
  for secure group communication.  Therefore, details are delegated to
  separate application profiles of this document, as specialized
  instances that target a particular group communication approach and
  define how communications in the group are protected.  Compliance
  requirements for such application profiles are also specified.

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.

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 controversy.

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?

This draft in itself cannot be implemented. The API and message template formats that it defines have to be instantiated by its profiles (such as key-groupcomm-oscore), which can rather be implemented. The latest has been implemented in the java ACE implementation for Californium
https://bitbucket.org/marco-tiloca-sics/ace-java/


Personnel:

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

Daniel Migault is the document shepherd and Benjamin Kaduk is the responsible 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.

I reviewed some former version of this document and requested some other reviewers to go through the various versions. I believe the document is ready.

(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.

(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?

yes, confirmation has been made on the mailing list

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

(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?

I believe we have been to a sufficient number of reviews to declare consenus.

(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.

Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '01' on line 1264

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '02' on line 1264

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-04) exists of draft-ietf-ace-aif-03

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft:
    draft-ietf-ace-aif (ref. 'I-D.ietf-ace-aif')

  -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref.
    'I-D.ietf-cose-countersign'

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft:
    draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs (ref. 'I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs')

  -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref.
    'I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct'

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 7967


    Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 5 comments (--).

    Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
    the items above.

(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 document contains a media type, uris but this is pretty much mainstream in this group, so I do not believe additional reviews are needed.

(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?

the document is waiting for:
*  -aif that has already been sent to the IESG
* -ace-oauth-authz in the RFC editor queue
* -cose-rfc8152bis-struct in the RFC Editor queue

I think it would be good to have key-groupcom and key-groupcom-oscore being shipped together and the latter is in WGLC.

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


possible downref are:
* -aif ( now moved to standard track)
* -cose-countersign which is standard track but in a draft state
* -cose-rfc8152bis-struct whihc is standard track but in a draft state
* -cose-rfc8152bis-algs which is informational as it describes algorithms


(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 IANA section seems correct.

(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.

the following registries are to be created.:
*  ACE Groupcomm Parameters
* ACE Groupcomm Key Types
* ACE Groupcomm Profiles
* ACE Groupcomm Policies
* Sequence Number Synchronization Methods
*  ACE Scope Semantics
* ACE Groupcomm Errors
* ACE Groupcomm Rekeying Schemes

Marco  Tiloca, Cigdem Sengul are probably good candidates

(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?

na
2022-02-02
15 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?

The type is standard track which is appropriated as it defines a framework on which profile will be derived and need to be inter-operable.

(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:

This document defines how to use the Authentication and Authorization
  for Constrained Environments (ACE) framework to distribute keying
  material and configuration parameters for secure group communication.
  Candidate group members acting as Clients and authorized to join a
  group can do so by interacting with a Key Distribution Center (KDC)
  acting as Resource Server, from which they obtain the keying material
  to communicate with other group members.  While defining general
  message formats as well as the interface and operations available at
  the KDC, this document supports different approaches and protocols
  for secure group communication.  Therefore, details are delegated to
  separate application profiles of this document, as specialized
  instances that target a particular group communication approach and
  define how communications in the group are protected.  Compliance
  requirements for such application profiles are also specified.

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.

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 controversy.

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?

This draft in itself cannot be implemented. The API and message template formats that it defines have to be instantiated by its profiles (such as key-groupcomm-oscore), which can rather be implemented. The latest has been implemented in the java ACE implementation for Californium
https://bitbucket.org/marco-tiloca-sics/ace-java/


Personnel:

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

Daniel Migault is the document shepherd and Benjamin Kaduk is the responsible 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.

I reviewed some former version of this document and requested some other reviewers to go through the various versions. I believe the document is ready.

(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.

(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?

yes, confirmation has been made on the mailing list

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

(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?

I believe we have been to a sufficient number of reviews to declare consenus.

(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 document contains a media type, uris but this is pretty much mainstream in this group, so I do not believe additional reviews are needed.

(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?

the document is waiting for:
*  -aif that has already been sent to the IESG
* -ace-oauth-authz in the RFC editor queue
* -cose-rfc8152bis-struct in the RFC Editor queue

I think it would be good to have key-groupcom and key-groupcom-oscore being shipped together and the latter is in WGLC.

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

XXX
possible downref are:
* -aif ( this is likely an error)
* -cose-countersign which is standard track but in a draft state
* -cose-rfc8152bis-struct whihc is standard track but in a draft state
* -cose-rfc8152bis-algs which is informational as it describes algorithms


(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 IANA section seems correct.

(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.

the following registries are to be created.:
*  ACE Groupcomm Parameters
* ACE Groupcomm Key Types
* ACE Groupcomm Profiles
* ACE Groupcomm Policies
* Sequence Number Synchronization Methods
*  ACE Scope Semantics
* ACE Groupcomm Errors
* ACE Groupcomm Rekeying Schemes

Marco  Tiloca, Cigdem Sengul are probably good candidates

(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?

na
2021-12-23
15 Marco Tiloca New version available: draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-15.txt
2021-12-23
15 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Marco Tiloca)
2021-12-23
15 Marco Tiloca Uploaded new revision
2021-12-22
14 Daniel Migault Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set.
2021-12-22
14 Daniel Migault IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call
2021-12-22
14 Daniel Migault Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2021-12-22
14 Daniel Migault Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2021-12-22
14 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?

The type is standard track which is appropriated as it defines a framework on which profile will be derived and need to be inter-operable.

(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:

This document defines how to use the Authentication and Authorization
  for Constrained Environments (ACE) framework to distribute keying
  material and configuration parameters for secure group communication.
  Candidate group members acting as Clients and authorized to join a
  group can do so by interacting with a Key Distribution Center (KDC)
  acting as Resource Server, from which they obtain the keying material
  to communicate with other group members.  While defining general
  message formats as well as the interface and operations available at
  the KDC, this document supports different approaches and protocols
  for secure group communication.  Therefore, details are delegated to
  separate application profiles of this document, as specialized
  instances that target a particular group communication approach and
  define how communications in the group are protected.  Compliance
  requirements for such application profiles are also specified.

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.

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 controversy.

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?

This draft in itself cannot be implemented. The API and message template formats that it defines have to be instantiated by its profiles (such as key-groupcomm-oscore), which can rather be implemented. The latest has been implemented in the java ACE implementation for Californium
https://bitbucket.org/marco-tiloca-sics/ace-java/


Personnel:

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

Daniel Migault is the document shepherd and Benjamin Kaduk is the responsible 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.

I reviewed some former version of this document and requested some other reviewers to go through the various versions. I believe the document is ready.

(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.

(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.

(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?

I believe we have been to a sufficient number of reviews to declare consenus.

(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 document contains a media type, uris but this is pretty much mainstream in this group, so I do not believe additional reviews are needed.

(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?

the document is waiting for:
*  -aif that has already been sent to the IESG
* -ace-oauth-authz in the RFC editor queue
* -cose-rfc8152bis-struct in the RFC Editor queue

I think it would be good to have key-groupcom and key-groupcom-oscore being shipped together and the latter is in WGLC.

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

XXX
possible downref are:
* -aif ( this is likely an error)
* -cose-countersign which is standard track but in a draft state
* -cose-rfc8152bis-struct whihc is standard track but in a draft state
* -cose-rfc8152bis-algs which is informational as it describes algorithms


(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 IANA section seems correct.

(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.

the following registries are to be created.:
*  ACE Groupcomm Parameters
* ACE Groupcomm Key Types
* ACE Groupcomm Profiles
* ACE Groupcomm Policies
* Sequence Number Synchronization Methods
*  ACE Scope Semantics
* ACE Groupcomm Errors
* ACE Groupcomm Rekeying Schemes

Marco  Tiloca, Cigdem Sengul are probably good candidates

(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?

na
2021-12-22
14 Daniel Migault Notification list changed to mglt.ietf@gmail.com because the document shepherd was set
2021-12-22
14 Daniel Migault Document shepherd changed to Daniel Migault
2021-10-25
14 Marco Tiloca New version available: draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-14.txt
2021-10-25
14 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Marco Tiloca)
2021-10-25
14 Marco Tiloca Uploaded new revision
2021-08-30
13 Daniel Migault IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2021-07-12
13 Marco Tiloca New version available: draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-13.txt
2021-07-12
13 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Marco Tiloca)
2021-07-12
13 Marco Tiloca Uploaded new revision
2021-05-11
12 Marco Tiloca New version available: draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-12.txt
2021-05-11
12 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Marco Tiloca)
2021-05-11
12 Marco Tiloca Uploaded new revision
2021-02-22
11 Marco Tiloca New version available: draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-11.txt
2021-02-22
11 (System) New version approved
2021-02-22
11 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Francesca Palombini , Marco Tiloca
2021-02-22
11 Marco Tiloca Uploaded new revision
2020-11-02
10 Francesca Palombini New version available: draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-10.txt
2020-11-02
10 (System) New version approved
2020-11-02
10 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Marco Tiloca , Francesca Palombini
2020-11-02
10 Francesca Palombini Uploaded new revision
2020-11-02
10 Francesca Palombini Uploaded new revision
2020-09-04
09 Francesca Palombini New version available: draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-09.txt
2020-09-04
09 (System) New version approved
2020-09-04
09 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Marco Tiloca , Francesca Palombini
2020-09-04
09 Francesca Palombini Uploaded new revision
2020-09-04
09 Francesca Palombini Uploaded new revision
2020-07-15
08 Jim Schaad Added to session: IETF-108: ace  Wed-1100
2020-07-13
08 Francesca Palombini New version available: draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-08.txt
2020-07-13
08 (System) New version approved
2020-07-13
08 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Francesca Palombini , Marco Tiloca
2020-07-13
08 Francesca Palombini Uploaded new revision
2020-07-13
08 Francesca Palombini Uploaded new revision
2020-06-18
07 Marco Tiloca New version available: draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-07.txt
2020-06-18
07 (System) New version approved
2020-06-18
07 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Francesca Palombini , Marco Tiloca
2020-06-18
07 Marco Tiloca Uploaded new revision
2020-05-11
06 Francesca Palombini New version available: draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-06.txt
2020-05-11
06 (System) New version approved
2020-05-11
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Francesca Palombini , Marco Tiloca
2020-05-11
06 Francesca Palombini Uploaded new revision
2020-05-11
06 Francesca Palombini Uploaded new revision
2020-03-09
05 Marco Tiloca New version available: draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-05.txt
2020-03-09
05 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Marco Tiloca)
2020-03-09
05 Marco Tiloca Uploaded new revision
2020-01-15
04 Francesca Palombini New version available: draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-04.txt
2020-01-15
04 (System) New version approved
2020-01-15
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Marco Tiloca , Francesca Palombini
2020-01-15
04 Francesca Palombini Uploaded new revision
2019-11-04
03 Francesca Palombini New version available: draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-03.txt
2019-11-04
03 (System) New version approved
2019-11-04
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Marco Tiloca , Francesca Palombini
2019-11-04
03 Francesca Palombini Uploaded new revision
2019-11-04
03 Francesca Palombini Uploaded new revision
2019-07-05
02 Marco Tiloca New version available: draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-02.txt
2019-07-05
02 (System) New version approved
2019-07-05
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Marco Tiloca , Francesca Palombini
2019-07-05
02 Marco Tiloca Uploaded new revision
2019-03-08
01 Marco Tiloca New version available: draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-01.txt
2019-03-08
01 (System) New version approved
2019-03-08
01 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Marco Tiloca , Francesca Palombini
2019-03-08
01 Marco Tiloca Uploaded new revision
2018-12-20
00 Jim Schaad This document now replaces draft-palombini-ace-key-groupcomm instead of None
2018-12-20
00 Marco Tiloca New version available: draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-00.txt
2018-12-20
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2018-12-20
00 Marco Tiloca Set submitter to "Marco Tiloca ", replaces to draft-palombini-ace-key-groupcomm and sent approval email to group chairs: ace-chairs@ietf.org
2018-12-20
00 Marco Tiloca Uploaded new revision