Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

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


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?


(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.


(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.)


(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
(See 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.

  ** 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.

  ** 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?


(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.


(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.


(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with
any of the recommended validation tools
( for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply
with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in