Key Provisioning for Group Communication using ACE
draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-15
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
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 <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com>, Marco Tiloca <marco.tiloca@ri.se> |
|
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 <marco.tiloca@ri.se>, Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com> |
|
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 <marco.tiloca@ri.se>, Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com> |
|
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 <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com>, Marco Tiloca <marco.tiloca@ri.se> |
|
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 <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com>, Marco Tiloca <marco.tiloca@ri.se> |
|
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 <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com>, Marco Tiloca <marco.tiloca@ri.se> |
|
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 <marco.tiloca@ri.se>, Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com> |
|
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 <marco.tiloca@ri.se>, Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com> |
|
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 <marco.tiloca@ri.se>, Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com> |
|
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 <marco.tiloca@ri.se>, Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com> |
|
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 <marco.tiloca@ri.se>", 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 |