Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT)-TLS profile of Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) Framework
draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-17
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2022-04-04
|
17 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
|
2022-04-04
|
17 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
|
2022-04-04
|
17 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
|
2022-03-31
|
17 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
|
2022-03-24
|
17 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF |
|
2022-03-24
|
17 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
|
2022-03-24
|
17 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
|
2022-03-23
|
17 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
|
2022-03-23
|
17 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
|
2022-03-23
|
17 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
|
2022-03-23
|
17 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2022-03-23
|
17 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
|
2022-03-23
|
17 | (System) | Removed all action holders (IESG state changed) |
|
2022-03-23
|
17 | Benjamin Kaduk | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
|
2022-03-23
|
17 | Cigdem Sengul | New version available: draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-17.txt |
|
2022-03-23
|
17 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Cigdem Sengul) |
|
2022-03-23
|
17 | Cigdem Sengul | Uploaded new revision |
|
2022-03-22
|
16 | Francesca Palombini | [Ballot comment] Thank you for the work on this document Many thanks to Jean Mahoney for her ART ART review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/REdbeKR0FBJ1CnVtKOUaJnaeONk/, and to the … [Ballot comment] Thank you for the work on this document Many thanks to Jean Mahoney for her ART ART review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/REdbeKR0FBJ1CnVtKOUaJnaeONk/, and to the authors for addressing it. Thanks to Carsten Bormann for his review and text improvement to the IANA registrations for AIF (in the editor copy, to be included in v-17). Francesca |
|
2022-03-22
|
16 | Francesca Palombini | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Francesca Palombini has been changed to Yes from Discuss |
|
2022-03-22
|
16 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot comment] Thanks to Jean Mahoney for her ARTART review. I encourage the authors to respond at least to what she identified as minor issues. … [Ballot comment] Thanks to Jean Mahoney for her ARTART review. I encourage the authors to respond at least to what she identified as minor issues. Thanks for resolving my DISCUSS issue. The final SHOULD in Section 2.4.2 seems weak to me. I recommend using a non-BCP 14 "should" instead. |
|
2022-03-22
|
16 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Murray Kucherawy has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
|
2022-03-21
|
16 | (System) | Changed action holders to Benjamin Kaduk (IESG state changed) |
|
2022-03-21
|
16 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
|
2022-03-21
|
16 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
|
2022-03-21
|
16 | Cigdem Sengul | New version available: draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-16.txt |
|
2022-03-21
|
16 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Cigdem Sengul) |
|
2022-03-21
|
16 | Cigdem Sengul | Uploaded new revision |
|
2022-03-10
|
15 | (System) | Changed action holders to Benjamin Kaduk, Anthony Kirby, Cigdem Sengul (IESG state changed) |
|
2022-03-10
|
15 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
|
2022-03-10
|
15 | Martin Vigoureux | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux |
|
2022-03-10
|
15 | Francesca Palombini | [Ballot discuss] Updating my ballot after reviewing draft-ietf-ace-aif-06. Just want to make sure we don't miss anything, please feel free to correct me if I … [Ballot discuss] Updating my ballot after reviewing draft-ietf-ace-aif-06. Just want to make sure we don't miss anything, please feel free to correct me if I missed the mark here. FP: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ace-aif-06#section-4 states: default values are the values "URI-local- part" for Toid and "REST-method-set" for Tperm, as per Section 3 of the present specification. A specification that wants to use Generic AIF with different Toid and/or Tperm is expected to request these as media type parameters (Section 5.2) and register a corresponding Content-Format (Section 5.3). FP: I wonder if this document should define a new media type parameter for Tperm (as REST-method-set is not appropriate for "pub"/"sub" value) and register a corresponding Content-Format as indicated in the paragraph above. CC'ing Carsten for his opinion. |
|
2022-03-10
|
15 | Francesca Palombini | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Francesca Palombini has been changed to Discuss from No Objection |
|
2022-03-10
|
15 | Francesca Palombini | [Ballot comment] Thank you for the work on this document Many thanks to Jean Mahoney for her ART ART review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/REdbeKR0FBJ1CnVtKOUaJnaeONk/, and to the … [Ballot comment] Thank you for the work on this document Many thanks to Jean Mahoney for her ART ART review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/REdbeKR0FBJ1CnVtKOUaJnaeONk/, and to the authors for addressing it. Only two minor comments easy to fix, see below. Francesca 1. ----- FP: Please replace references to RFC7230 with draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-19 which will obsolete it once published. Note that draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-19 is already with the RFC Editor so will not delay publication of your document. 2. ----- Section 7.3 FP: I believe this profile should be registered in the Standards track portion of the registry - please add a note about it so that IANA is aware, changing for example: OLD: * CBOR Value: To be assigned by IANA NEW: * CBOR Value: To be assigned by IANA in the (-256, 255) range |
|
2022-03-10
|
15 | Francesca Palombini | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Francesca Palombini |
|
2022-03-09
|
15 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot discuss] This should be quick to resolve. In Section 3.2: The Broker MUST NOT forward messages to unauthorized subscribers. There is no … [Ballot discuss] This should be quick to resolve. In Section 3.2: The Broker MUST NOT forward messages to unauthorized subscribers. There is no way to inform the Clients with invalid tokens that an authorization error has occurred other than sending a DISCONNECT packet. Therefore, the Broker SHOULD send a DISCONNECT packet with the reason code '0x87 (Not authorized)'. This seems like a contradiction. How is that SHOULD not a MUST? |
|
2022-03-09
|
15 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot comment] Thanks to Jean Mahoney for her ARTART review. I encourage the authors to respond at least to what she identified as minor issues. … [Ballot comment] Thanks to Jean Mahoney for her ARTART review. I encourage the authors to respond at least to what she identified as minor issues. The final SHOULD in Section 2.4.2 seems weak to me. I recommend using a non-BCP 14 "should" instead. In Section 7.2, the "Required Parameters" and "Optional Parameters" should be "N/A", not "none". See Section 5.6 of RFC 6838. |
|
2022-03-09
|
15 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy |
|
2022-03-09
|
15 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
|
2022-03-09
|
15 | Derrell Piper | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Derrell Piper. Sent review to list. |
|
2022-03-09
|
15 | John Scudder | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for John Scudder |
|
2022-03-09
|
15 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker |
|
2022-03-09
|
15 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
|
2022-03-08
|
15 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] ** Section 2. If the Client is resource-constrained or does not support HTTPS, a separate Client Authorization Server may carry out … [Ballot comment] ** Section 2. If the Client is resource-constrained or does not support HTTPS, a separate Client Authorization Server may carry out the token request on behalf of the Client, and later, onboard the Client with the token. Appreciating that the CAS is out of scope, I’m trying to understand which of the (A) – (F) interactions are handled by the Client and which would be handled by the CAS. Figure 1 is a ambiguous. (A) and (B) seem like they would be covered by the CAS, but I’m assuming (C) and (D) are the Client after being provisioned with the access token (from A and B). Is that correct? If so, it would be helpful to clarify that in the text and/or diagram. ** Section 3.3. As a response to the SUBSCRIBE packet, the Broker issues a SUBACK. For each Topic Filter, the SUBACK packet includes a return code matching the QoS level for the corresponding Topic Filter. In the case of failure, the return code is 0x87, indicating that the Client is 'Not authorized'. A reason code is returned for each Topic Filter. This may be a detail of MQTT. Does the explicit use of “not authorized” vs. “not authorized/not found” leak the existence of a topic name to an off-path attacker? It seems that with “not authorized” semantics, one could try to guess topic name with enumeration, say, try 1: “/topic/is-the-sensitive-project-called-A”, try 2: “/topic/is-the-sensitive-project-called-B”, etc. Editorial Nits ** Section 1. Editorial. s/The Client-AS and RS-AS/The Client-AS and RS-AS communication/ ** Section 1.3. Editorial. Chose either the “65535” or “65,535” convention (comma or no comma). “UTF-8 string” uses the former and “binary data” uses the latter ** Section 1.2. Editorial. SUBACK. Describe the who is the sender and receiver like in the other message types. OLD Subscribe acknowledgement. NEW Subscribe acknowledgement from the Broker to the Client. ** Section 2. Editorial. The token request and response use the token endpoint at the AS, specified for HTTP-based interactions in Section 5.8 of the ACE framework [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz]. This reference should likely read Section 4 of [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz] as this section included the bullet protocol flow from (A) – (E). ** Section 2.3. Should it be MQTT messages vs. MQTT packets? For example, in “… to allow a Client’s future PUBLISH and SUBSCRIBE packets”. ** Section 3.3. Editorial. s/token token/token scope which/ |
|
2022-03-08
|
15 | Roman Danyliw | Ballot comment text updated for Roman Danyliw |
|
2022-03-08
|
15 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] ** Section 2. If the Client is resource-constrained or does not support HTTPS, a separate Client Authorization Server may carry out … [Ballot comment] ** Section 2. If the Client is resource-constrained or does not support HTTPS, a separate Client Authorization Server may carry out the token request on behalf of the Client, and later, onboard the Client with the token. Appreciating that the CAS is out of scope, I’m trying to understand which of the (A) – (F) interactions are handled by the Client and which would be handled by the CAS. Figure 1 is a ambiguous. (A) and (B) seem like they would be covered by the CAS, but I’m assuming (C) and (D) are the Client after being provisioned with the access token (from A and B). Is that correct? If so, it would be helpful to clarify that in the text and/or diagram. ** Section 3.3. As a response to the SUBSCRIBE packet, the Broker issues a SUBACK. For each Topic Filter, the SUBACK packet includes a return code matching the QoS level for the corresponding Topic Filter. In the case of failure, the return code is 0x87, indicating that the Client is 'Not authorized'. A reason code is returned for each Topic Filter. This may be a detail of MQTT. Does the explicit use of “not authorized” vs. “not authorized/not found” leak the existence of a topic name to an off-path attacker? It seems that with “not authorized” semantics, one could try to guess topic name with enumeration, say, try 1: “/topic/is-the-sensitive-project-called-A”, try 2: “/topic/is-the-sensitive-project-called-B”, etc. Editorial Nits ** Section 1. Editorial. s/The Client-AS and RS-AS/The Client-AS and RS-AS communication/ ** Section 1.3. Editorial. Chose either the “65535” or “65,535” convention (comma or no comma). “UTF-8 string” uses the former and “binary data” uses the latter ** Section 1.2. Editorial. SUBACK. Describe the who is the sender and receiver like in the other message types. OLD Subscribe acknowledgement. NEW Subscribe acknowledgement from the Broker to the Client. ** Section 2. Editorial. The token request and response use the token endpoint at the AS, specified for HTTP-based interactions in Section 5.8 of the ACE framework [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz]. This reference should likely read Section 4 of [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz] as this section included the bullet protocol flow from (A) – (E). ** Section 2.3. Should it be MQTT messages vs. MQTT packets? For example, in “… to allow a Client’s future PUBLISH and SUBSCRIBE packets”. ** Section 3.3. Editorial. s/token token/token scope which/ |
|
2022-03-08
|
15 | Roman Danyliw | Ballot comment text updated for Roman Danyliw |
|
2022-03-08
|
15 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] ** Section 2. If the Client is resource-constrained or does not support HTTPS, a separate Client Authorization Server may carry out … [Ballot comment] ** Section 2. If the Client is resource-constrained or does not support HTTPS, a separate Client Authorization Server may carry out the token request on behalf of the Client, and later, onboard the Client with the token. Appreciating that the CAS is out of scope, I’m trying to understand which of the (A) – (F) interactions are handle by the Client and which would be handled by the CAS which it is used. Figure 1 is a ambiguous. (A) and (B) seem like they would be covered by the CAS, but I’m assuming (C) and (D) are the Client after being provisioned with the access token (from A and B). Is that correct? If so, it would be helpful to clarify that in the text and/or diagram. ** Section 3.3. As a response to the SUBSCRIBE packet, the Broker issues a SUBACK. For each Topic Filter, the SUBACK packet includes a return code matching the QoS level for the corresponding Topic Filter. In the case of failure, the return code is 0x87, indicating that the Client is 'Not authorized'. A reason code is returned for each Topic Filter. This may be a detail of MQTT. Does the explicit use of “not authorized” vs. “not authorized/not found” leak the existence of a topic name to an off-path attacker? It seems that with “not authorized” semantics, one could try to guess topic name with enumeration, say, try 1: “/topic/is-the-sensitive-project-called-A”, try 2: “/topic/is-the-sensitive-project-called-B”, etc. Editorial Nits ** Section 1. Editorial. s/The Client-AS and RS-AS/The Client-AS and RS-AS communication/ ** Section 1.3. Editorial. Chose either the “65535” or “65,535” convention (comma or no comma). “UTF-8 string” uses the former and “binary data” uses the latter ** Section 1.2. Editorial. SUBACK. Describe the who is the sender and receiver like in the other message types. OLD Subscribe acknowledgement. NEW Subscribe acknowledgement from the Broker to the Client. ** Section 2. Editorial. The token request and response use the token endpoint at the AS, specified for HTTP-based interactions in Section 5.8 of the ACE framework [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz]. This reference should likely read Section 4 of [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz] as this section included the bullet protocol flow from (A) – (E). ** Section 2.3. Should it be MQTT messages vs. MQTT packets? For example, in “… to allow a Client’s future PUBLISH and SUBSCRIBE packets”. ** Section 3.3. Editorial. s/token token/token scope which/ |
|
2022-03-08
|
15 | Roman Danyliw | Ballot comment text updated for Roman Danyliw |
|
2022-03-08
|
15 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] ** Section 2. If the Client is resource-constrained or does not support HTTPS, a separate Client Authorization Server may carry out … [Ballot comment] ** Section 2. If the Client is resource-constrained or does not support HTTPS, a separate Client Authorization Server may carry out the token request on behalf of the Client, and later, onboard the Client with the token. Appreciating that the CAS is out of scope, I’m trying to understand which of the (A) – (F) interactions are handle by the Client and which would be handled by the CAS which it is used. Figure 1 is a ambiguous. (A) and (B) seem like they would be covered by the CAS, but I’m assuming (C) and (D) are the Client after being provisioned with the access token (from A and B). Is that correct? If so, it would be helpful to clarify that in the text and/or diagram. ** Section 3.3. As a response to the SUBSCRIBE packet, the Broker issues a SUBACK. For each Topic Filter, the SUBACK packet includes a return code matching the QoS level for the corresponding Topic Filter. In the case of failure, the return code is 0x87, indicating that the Client is 'Not authorized'. A reason code is returned for each Topic Filter. This may be a detail of MQTT. Does the explicit use of “not authorized” vs. “not authorized/not found” leak the existence of a topic name to an off-path attacker? It seems that with “not authorized” semantics, one could try to guess topic name with enumeration, say, try 1: “/topic/is-the-sensitive-project-call-A”, try 2: “/topic/is-the-sensitive-project-call-B”, etc. Editorial Nits ** Section 1. Editorial. s/The Client-AS and RS-AS/The Client-AS and RS-AS communication/ ** Section 1.3. Editorial. Chose either the “65535” or “65,535” convention (comma or no comma). “UTF-8 string” uses the former and “binary data” uses the latter ** Section 1.2. Editorial. SUBACK. Describe the who is the sender and receiver like in the other message types. OLD Subscribe acknowledgement. NEW Subscribe acknowledgement from the Broker to the Client. ** Section 2. Editorial. The token request and response use the token endpoint at the AS, specified for HTTP-based interactions in Section 5.8 of the ACE framework [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz]. This reference should likely read Section 4 of [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz] as this section included the bullet protocol flow from (A) – (E). ** Section 2.3. Should it be MQTT messages vs. MQTT packets? For example, in “… to allow a Client’s future PUBLISH and SUBSCRIBE packets”. ** Section 3.3. Editorial. s/token token/token scope which/ |
|
2022-03-08
|
15 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
|
2022-03-07
|
15 | Erik Kline | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline |
|
2022-03-07
|
15 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Wilton |
|
2022-03-07
|
15 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot comment] Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more guidance: * Term "master"; alternatives might be "active", "central", … [Ballot comment] Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more guidance: * Term "master"; alternatives might be "active", "central", "initiator", "leader", "main", "orchestrator", "parent", "primary", "server". * Term "his"; alternatives might be "they", "them", "their". * Term "invalid"; alternatives might be "not valid", "unenforceable", "not binding", "inoperative", "illegitimate", "incorrect", "improper", "unacceptable", "inapplicable", "revoked", "rescinded". Thanks to Theresa Enghardt for their General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/-D0Fe7Px8IRU5yIFmngv6SR420c). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you did with these suggestions. Section 2.1. , paragraph 5, nit: > This document follows [RFC7800] for PoP semantics for JWTs (CWTs can > also be used). The PoP token includes a 'cnf' parameter with a s/can/MAY/ ? Section 2.2.2. , paragraph 4, nit: - DISCONNECT packet as explained below. + DISCONNECT packet, as explained below. + + Section 2. , paragraph 4, nit: > e RPK case is handled as described in in Section 3.2.1 of the DTLS profile [ > ^^^^^ Possible typo: you repeated a word. Section 2.2.1. , paragraph 2, nit: > lient MUST validate a public key from a X.509 certificate or an RPK from the > ^ Use "an" instead of "a" if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. "an article", "an hour". Section 2.2.1. , paragraph 7, nit: > equal to 0, and the token is invalid or the claims cannot be obtained in the > ^^^ Use a comma before "or" if it connects two independent clauses (unless they are closely connected and short). Section 2.2.3. , paragraph 2, nit: > to an earlier proposal by Fremantle et al [fremantle14]. After sending the C > ^^^^^ A period is misplaced or missing. Section 2.2.4.2. , paragraph 3, nit: > as shown in Figure 7 and includes the the 8-byte Client nonce, and the signa > ^^^^^^^ Possible typo: you repeated a word. Section 2.2.5. , paragraph 3, nit: > ame or filter in question is either an an exact match to or a subset of at le > ^^^^^ Possible typo: you repeated a word. Section 2.4.1. , paragraph 3, nit: > est for topic "a/b/*", and has a token token permits "a/*", this is a valid s > ^^^^^^^^^^^ Possible typo: you repeated a word. Section 10.1. , paragraph 23, nit: > broker. * Added a statement that the the broker will disconnect on almost an > ^^^^^^^ Possible typo: you repeated a word. Uncited references: [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-params], [RFC8422], [RFC7251], and [RFC8705]. Document references draft-ietf-ace-aif-05, but -06 is the latest available revision. Document references draft-ietf-ace-pubsub-profile-01, but -04 is the latest available revision. These URLs in the document did not return content: * http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ace-pubsub-profile-01.txt These URLs in the document can probably be converted to HTTPS: * http://docs.oasis-open.org/mqtt/mqtt/v5.0/os/mqtt-v5.0-os.html * http://docs.oasis-open.org/mqtt/mqtt/v3.1.1/mqtt-v3.1.1.html * http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/SIoT.2014.8 |
|
2022-03-07
|
15 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Lars Eggert |
|
2022-03-04
|
15 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by ARTART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Jean Mahoney. Sent review to list. |
|
2022-03-03
|
15 | Cindy Morgan | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2022-03-10 |
|
2022-03-03
|
15 | Benjamin Kaduk | Ballot has been issued |
|
2022-03-03
|
15 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk |
|
2022-03-03
|
15 | Benjamin Kaduk | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2022-03-03
|
15 | Benjamin Kaduk | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
|
2022-03-03
|
15 | Benjamin Kaduk | Ballot writeup was changed |
|
2022-03-03
|
15 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
|
2022-03-02
|
15 | Reese Enghardt | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Theresa Enghardt. Sent review to list. |
|
2022-03-02
|
15 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
|
2022-03-02
|
15 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-15. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-15. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. The IANA Functions Operator has a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document. We understand that, upon approval of this document, there are three actions which we must complete. First, in the TLS Exporter Labels registry on the Transport Layer Security (TLS) Parameters registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-parameters/ the existing registration for Value: EXPORTER-ACE-MQTT-Sign-Challenge DTLS-OK? No Recommended: No Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Note: will have its reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ]. Second, in the application space of the Media Types registry located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/ a new registration is to be made as follows: Name: ace+json Template: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Third, in the ACE Profiles registry on the Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/ace/ a new registration is to be made as follows: Name: mqtt_tls Description: Profile for delegating Client authentication and authorization using MQTT for the Client and Broker (RS) interactions, and HTTP for the AS interactions. TLS is used for confidentiality and integrity protection and server authentication. Client authentication can be provided either via TLS or using in-band proof-of-possession at the MQTT application layer. CBOR Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] IANA Question --> Which range in the ACE Profiles registry should this registration come from? The IANA Functions Operator understands that these three actions are the only ones 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. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal Lead IANA Services Specialist |
|
2022-03-01
|
15 | Cigdem Sengul | New version available: draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-15.txt |
|
2022-03-01
|
15 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Cigdem Sengul) |
|
2022-03-01
|
15 | Cigdem Sengul | Uploaded new revision |
|
2022-02-25
|
14 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Derrell Piper |
|
2022-02-25
|
14 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Derrell Piper |
|
2022-02-21
|
14 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tim Wicinski |
|
2022-02-21
|
14 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tim Wicinski |
|
2022-02-20
|
14 | Barry Leiba | Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Jean Mahoney |
|
2022-02-20
|
14 | Barry Leiba | Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Jean Mahoney |
|
2022-02-20
|
14 | Barry Leiba | Closed request for Last Call review by ARTART with state 'Withdrawn': Duplicate by system |
|
2022-02-20
|
14 | Julian Reschke | Assignment of request for Last Call review by ARTART to Julian Reschke was rejected |
|
2022-02-20
|
14 | Barry Leiba | Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Julian Reschke |
|
2022-02-20
|
14 | Barry Leiba | Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Julian Reschke |
|
2022-02-17
|
14 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Theresa Enghardt |
|
2022-02-17
|
14 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Theresa Enghardt |
|
2022-02-17
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
|
2022-02-17
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-03-03):<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org> CC: Daniel Migault <daniel.migault@ericsson.com … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-03-03):<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org> CC: Daniel Migault <daniel.migault@ericsson.com>, ace-chairs@ietf.org, ace@ietf.org, daniel.migault@ericsson.com, draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile@ietf.org, kaduk@mit.edu Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-14.txt> (Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT)-TLS profile of Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) Framework) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments WG (ace) to consider the following document: - 'Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT)-TLS profile of Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) Framework' <draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-14.txt> 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 2022-03-03. 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 specifies a profile for the ACE (Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments) framework to enable authorization in a Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT)-based publish-subscribe messaging system. Proof-of-possession keys, bound to OAuth2.0 access tokens, are used to authenticate and authorize MQTT Clients. The protocol relies on TLS for confidentiality and MQTT server (broker) authentication. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
|
2022-02-17
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
|
2022-02-17
|
14 | Benjamin Kaduk | Last call was requested |
|
2022-02-17
|
14 | Benjamin Kaduk | Last call announcement was generated |
|
2022-02-17
|
14 | Benjamin Kaduk | Ballot approval text was generated |
|
2022-02-17
|
14 | Benjamin Kaduk | Ballot writeup was generated |
|
2022-02-17
|
14 | Benjamin Kaduk | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
|
2022-02-17
|
14 | (System) | Changed action holders to Benjamin Kaduk (IESG state changed) |
|
2022-02-17
|
14 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
|
2022-02-17
|
14 | Cigdem Sengul | New version available: draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-14.txt |
|
2022-02-17
|
14 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2022-02-17
|
14 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anthony Kirby <anthony@anthony.org>, Cigdem Sengul <csengul@acm.org> |
|
2022-02-17
|
14 | Cigdem Sengul | Uploaded new revision |
|
2021-12-07
|
13 | (System) | Changed action holders to Benjamin Kaduk, Anthony Kirby, Cigdem Sengul (IESG state changed) |
|
2021-12-07
|
13 | Benjamin Kaduk | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
|
2021-10-23
|
13 | (System) | Changed action holders to Benjamin Kaduk (IESG state changed) |
|
2021-10-23
|
13 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
|
2021-10-23
|
13 | Cigdem Sengul | New version available: draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-13.txt |
|
2021-10-23
|
13 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Cigdem Sengul) |
|
2021-10-23
|
13 | Cigdem Sengul | Uploaded new revision |
|
2021-08-05
|
12 | (System) | Changed action holders to Benjamin Kaduk, Anthony Kirby, Cigdem Sengul (IESG state changed) |
|
2021-08-05
|
12 | Benjamin Kaduk | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
|
2021-05-11
|
12 | Cigdem Sengul | New version available: draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-12.txt |
|
2021-05-11
|
12 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2021-05-11
|
12 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anthony Kirby <anthony@anthony.org>, Cigdem Sengul <csengul@acm.org> |
|
2021-05-11
|
12 | Cigdem Sengul | Uploaded new revision |
|
2021-04-14
|
11 | Cigdem Sengul | New version available: draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-11.txt |
|
2021-04-14
|
11 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2021-04-14
|
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anthony Kirby <anthony@anthony.org>, Cigdem Sengul <csengul@acm.org> |
|
2021-04-14
|
11 | Cigdem Sengul | Uploaded new revision |
|
2021-03-09
|
10 | (System) | Changed action holders to Benjamin Kaduk (IESG state changed) |
|
2021-03-09
|
10 | Benjamin Kaduk | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
|
2020-12-18
|
10 | 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 requested type of RFC is standard Track. This is appropriated to provide interoperability. The type is indicate din the title. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. This document specifies a profile for the ACE (Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments) framework to enable authorization in an Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT)-based publish-subscribe messaging system. Proof-of-possession keys, bound to OAuth2.0 access tokens, are used to authenticate and authorize MQTT Clients. The protocol relies on TLS for confidentiality and MQTT server (broker) authentication. 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? Nothing was special. 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? There are at least two known implementations: * Implementation using the HiveMQ CE is a Java-based open source MQTT broker that fully supports MQTT 3.x and MQTT 5. https://github.com/michaelg9/HiveACEclient * The Mosquitto prototype was only v3.1.1: https://github.com/ciseng/ace-mqtt-mosquitto Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Daniel Migault is the shepherd, Ben Kaduk is teh Area Director (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 the document and have no special concerns I am considering the document 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. None (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 (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. None (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? The document went through several rounds of reviews. Though I came while the document was already a WG document. I have the impression that the number of reviewers were around 4. (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. nits mentions the lack of the RFC 2119 boilerplate but the boiler template is mentioned in section 1.1 draft-ietf-ace-aif is a normative reference which is appropriated as it defines the data model of MQTT in section 3. draft-ietf-cose-x509 is a normative reference as it defines the format of the rs_cnf and procedure to check it. 'MQTT-OASIS-Standard' and 'MQTT-OASIS-Standard-v5' define the MQTT document that is the subject of our document. While our document is mostly focused on an integrating MQTT to ACE, MQTT is defined by OASIS and fields of the protocol are defined in OASIS. I believe these document should be normative. draft-ietf-ace-pubsub-profile current version is effectively 01 so there might be an error in the nits tool. idnits 2.16.04 /tmp/draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-10.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the ID-Checklist requires). Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'RFC-XXXX' is mentioned on line 1095, but not defined ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-ietf-ace-aif (ref. 'I-D.ietf-ace-aif') -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'MQTT-OASIS-Standard' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'MQTT-OASIS-Standard-v5' -- Unexpected draft version: The latest known version of draft-ietf-ace-pubsub-profile is -00, but you're referring to -01. Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 3 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. NA (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? yes. wait the normative document are completed. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. Some are downward normative references as the mention standard that are part of other SDO (OASIS). See comments related to the nits. (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 shepherd checked the requested code points in the document be mentioned in the IANA as well as the procedure for registering these code points followed: Registration of the 'EXPORTER-ACE-MQTT-Sign-Challenge' in the TLS Exporter Label Registry is described in [RFC8447]. Request has been sent to the tls-reg-review@ietf.org bu Cigdem on 2020 November 1 and approved by Rich and Yoav. Registration of 'mqtt_tls' is in the ACE OAuth Profile Registry is specified in [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz] and require providing a template that has been added in the IANA section. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. NA (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc. rfc 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 |
|
2020-12-18
|
10 | Daniel Migault | Responsible AD changed to Benjamin Kaduk |
|
2020-12-18
|
10 | Daniel Migault | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
|
2020-12-18
|
10 | Daniel Migault | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
|
2020-12-18
|
10 | Daniel Migault | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
|
2020-12-18
|
10 | Daniel Migault | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared. |
|
2020-12-18
|
10 | Daniel Migault | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead |
|
2020-12-18
|
10 | Daniel Migault | IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call |
|
2020-12-18
|
10 | Daniel Migault | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
|
2020-12-18
|
10 | Daniel Migault | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
|
2020-12-18
|
10 | 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 requested type of RFC is standard Track. This is appropriated to provide interoperability. The type is indicate din the title. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. This document specifies a profile for the ACE (Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments) framework to enable authorization in an Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT)-based publish-subscribe messaging system. Proof-of-possession keys, bound to OAuth2.0 access tokens, are used to authenticate and authorize MQTT Clients. The protocol relies on TLS for confidentiality and MQTT server (broker) authentication. 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? Nothing was special. 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? There are at least two known implementations: * Implementation using the HiveMQ CE is a Java-based open source MQTT broker that fully supports MQTT 3.x and MQTT 5. https://github.com/michaelg9/HiveACEclient * The Mosquitto prototype was only v3.1.1: https://github.com/ciseng/ace-mqtt-mosquitto Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Daniel Migault is the shepherd, Ben Kaduk is teh Area Director (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 the document and have no special concerns I am considering the document 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. None (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 (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. None (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? The document went through several rounds of reviews. Though I came while the document was already a WG document. I have the impression that the number of reviewers were around 4. (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. nits mentions the lack of the RFC 2119 boilerplate but the boiler template is mentioned in section 1.1 draft-ietf-ace-aif is a normative reference which is appropriated as it defines the data model of MQTT in section 3. draft-ietf-cose-x509 is a normative reference as it defines the format of the rs_cnf and procedure to check it. 'MQTT-OASIS-Standard' and 'MQTT-OASIS-Standard-v5' define the MQTT document that is the subject of our document. While our document is mostly focused on an integrating MQTT to ACE, MQTT is defined by OASIS and fields of the protocol are defined in OASIS. I believe these document should be normative. draft-ietf-ace-pubsub-profile current version is effectively 01 so there might be an error in the nits tool. idnits 2.16.04 /tmp/draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-10.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the ID-Checklist requires). Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'RFC-XXXX' is mentioned on line 1095, but not defined ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-ietf-ace-aif (ref. 'I-D.ietf-ace-aif') -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'MQTT-OASIS-Standard' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'MQTT-OASIS-Standard-v5' -- Unexpected draft version: The latest known version of draft-ietf-ace-pubsub-profile is -00, but you're referring to -01. Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 3 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. NA (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? yes. wait the normative document are completed. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. Some are downward normative references as the mention standard that are part of other SDO (OASIS). See comments related to the nits. (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 shepherd checked the requested code points in the document be mentioned in the IANA as well as the procedure for registering these code points followed: Registration of the 'EXPORTER-ACE-MQTT-Sign-Challenge' in the TLS Exporter Label Registry is described in [RFC8447]. Request has been sent to the tls-reg-review@ietf.org bu Cigdem on 2020 November 1 and approved by Rich and Yoav. Registration of 'mqtt_tls' is in the ACE OAuth Profile Registry is specified in [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz] and require providing a template that has been added in the IANA section. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. NA (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc. rfc 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 |
|
2020-12-18
|
10 | Cigdem Sengul | New version available: draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-10.txt |
|
2020-12-18
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2020-12-18
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anthony Kirby <anthony@anthony.org>, Cigdem Sengul <csengul@acm.org> |
|
2020-12-18
|
10 | Cigdem Sengul | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-12-17
|
09 | 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 requested type of RFC is standard Track. This is appropriated to provide interoperability. The type is indicate din the title. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. This document specifies a profile for the ACE (Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments) framework to enable authorization in an Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT)-based publish-subscribe messaging system. Proof-of-possession keys, bound to OAuth2.0 access tokens, are used to authenticate and authorize MQTT Clients. The protocol relies on TLS for confidentiality and MQTT server (broker) authentication. 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? Nothing was special. 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? There are at least two known implementations: * Implementation using the HiveMQ CE is a Java-based open source MQTT broker that fully supports MQTT 3.x and MQTT 5. https://github.com/michaelg9/HiveACEclient * The Mosquitto prototype was only v3.1.1: https://github.com/ciseng/ace-mqtt-mosquitto Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Daniel Migault is the shepherd, Ben Kaduk is teh Area Director (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 the document and have no special concerns I am considering the document 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. None (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 (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. None (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? The document went through several rounds of reviews. Though I came while the document was already a WG document. I have the impression that the number of reviewers were around 4. (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. nits mentions the lack of the RFC 2119 boilerplate but the boiler template is mentioned in section 1.1 draft-ietf-ace-aif is a normative reference which is appropriated as it defines the data model of MQTT in section 3. draft-ietf-cose-x509 is a normative reference as it defines the format of the rs_cnf and procedure to check it. It is correct the current version is 08 while the version of teh reference is 07. As the document is normative, this will not make a huge difference. 'MQTT-OASIS-Standard' and 'MQTT-OASIS-Standard-v5' define the MQTT document that is the subject of our document. While our document is mostly focused on an integrating MQTT to ACE, MQTT is defined by OASIS and fields of the protocol are defined in OASIS. I believe these document should be normative. draft-ietf-ace-pubsub-profile current version is effectively 01 so there might be an error in the nits tool. idnits 2.16.04 /tmp/draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-09.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 1 character in excess of 72. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the ID-Checklist requires). Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'RFC-XXXX' is mentioned on line 1095, but not defined ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-ietf-ace-aif (ref. 'I-D.ietf-ace-aif') == Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of draft-ietf-cose-x509-07 -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'MQTT-OASIS-Standard' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'MQTT-OASIS-Standard-v5' -- Unexpected draft version: The latest known version of draft-ietf-ace-pubsub-profile is -00, but you're referring to -01. -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 7049 Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 4 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. NA (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? yes. wait the normative document are completed. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. Some are downward normative references as the mention standard that are part of other SDO (OASIS). See comments related to the nits. (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 shepherd checked the requested code points in the document be mentioned in the IANA as well as the procedure for registering these code points followed: Registration of the 'EXPORTER-ACE-MQTT-Sign-Challenge' in the TLS Exporter Label Registry is described in [RFC8447]. Request has been sent to the tls-reg-review@ietf.org bu Cigdem on 2020 November 1 and approved by Rich and Yoav. Registration of 'mqtt_tls' is in the ACE OAuth Profile Registry is specified in [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz] and require providing a template that has been added in the IANA section. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. NA (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc. rfc 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 |
|
2020-12-17
|
09 | Cigdem Sengul | New version available: draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-09.txt |
|
2020-12-17
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2020-12-17
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anthony Kirby <anthony@anthony.org>, Cigdem Sengul <csengul@acm.org> |
|
2020-12-17
|
09 | Cigdem Sengul | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-11-12
|
08 | 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 requested type of RFC is standard Track. This is appropriated to provide interoperability. The type is indicate din the title. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. This document specifies a profile for the ACE (Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments) framework to enable authorization in an Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT)-based publish-subscribe messaging system. Proof-of-possession keys, bound to OAuth2.0 access tokens, are used to authenticate and authorize MQTT Clients. The protocol relies on TLS for confidentiality and MQTT server (broker) authentication. 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? Nothing was special. 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? There are at least two known implementations: * Implementation using the HiveMQ CE is a Java-based open source MQTT broker that fully supports MQTT 3.x and MQTT 5. https://github.com/michaelg9/HiveACEclient * The Mosquitto prototype was only v3.1.1: https://github.com/ciseng/ace-mqtt-mosquitto Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Daniel Migault is the shepherd, Ben Kaduk is teh Area Director (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 the document and have no special concerns I am considering the document 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. None (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 (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. None (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? The document went through several rounds of reviews. Though I came while the document was already a WG document. I have the impression that the number of reviewers were around 4. (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. nits mentions the lack of the RFC 2119 boilerplate but the boiler template is mentioned in section 1.1 draft-ietf-ace-aif is a normative reference which is appropriated as it defines the data model of MQTT in section 3. draft-ietf-cose-x509 is a normative reference as it defines the format of the rs_cnf and procedure to check it. 'MQTT-OASIS-Standard' and 'MQTT-OASIS-Standard-v5' define the MQTT document that is the subject of our document. While our document is mostly focused on an integrating MQTT to ACE, MQTT is defined by OASIS and fields of the protocol are defined in OASIS. I believe these document should be normative. idnits 2.16.04 /tmp/draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-08.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 1 character in excess of 72. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Line 526 has weird spacing: '...rotocol name ...' == Line 977 has weird spacing: '...rotocol name ...' == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the ID-Checklist requires). -- The document date (November 1, 2020) is 10 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'RFC-XXXX' is mentioned on line 1095, but not defined ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-ietf-ace-aif (ref. 'I-D.ietf-ace-aif') -- Unexpected draft version: The latest known version of draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz is -34, but you're referring to -35. ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-ietf-cose-x509 (ref. 'I-D.ietf-cose-x509') -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'MQTT-OASIS-Standard' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'MQTT-OASIS-Standard-v5' ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 6234 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 8032 -- Unexpected draft version: The latest known version of draft-ietf-ace-pubsub-profile is -00, but you're referring to -01. Summary: 5 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 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. NA (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? yes. wait the normative document are completed. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. Some are downward normative references as the mention standard that are part of other SDO (OASIS). See comments related to the nits. (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 shepherd checked the requested code points in the document be mentioned in the IANA as well as the procedure for registering these code points followed: Registration of the 'EXPORTER-ACE-MQTT-Sign-Challenge' in the TLS Exporter Label Registry is described in [RFC8447]. Request has been sent to the tls-reg-review@ietf.org bu Cigdem on 2020 November 1 and approved by Rich and Yoav. Registration of 'mqtt_tls' is in the ACE OAuth Profile Registry is specified in [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz] and require providing a template that has been added in the IANA section. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. NA (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc. rfc 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 |
|
2020-11-01
|
08 | Cigdem Sengul | New version available: draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-08.txt |
|
2020-11-01
|
08 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Cigdem Sengul) |
|
2020-11-01
|
08 | Cigdem Sengul | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-09-22
|
07 | Jim Schaad | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set. |
|
2020-09-21
|
07 | 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 requested type of RFC is standard Track. This is appropriated to provide interoperability. The type is indicate din the title. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. This document specifies a profile for the ACE (Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments) framework to enable authorization in an Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT)-based publish-subscribe messaging system. Proof-of-possession keys, bound to OAuth2.0 access tokens, are used to authenticate and authorize MQTT Clients. The protocol relies on TLS for confidentiality and MQTT server (broker) authentication. 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? Nothing was special. 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? There are at least two known implementations: * Implementation using the HiveMQ CE is a Java-based open source MQTT broker that fully supports MQTT 3.x and MQTT 5. https://github.com/michaelg9/HiveACEclient * The Mosquitto prototype was only v3.1.1: https://github.com/ciseng/ace-mqtt-mosquitto Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Daniel Migault is the shepherd, Ben Kaduk is teh Area Director (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 the document and have no special concerns I am considering the document 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. None (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. None (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? The document went through several rounds of reviews. Though I came while the document was already a WG document. I have the impression that the number of reviewers were around 4. (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. NA (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? yes. wait the normative document are completed. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. Some are downward normative references as the mention standard that are part of other SDO (OASIS). (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). XXX (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. NA (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc. rfc 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 |
|
2020-09-03
|
07 | 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 requested type of RFC is standard Track. This is appropriated to provide interoperability. The type is indicate din the title. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. This document specifies a profile for the ACE (Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments) framework to enable authorization in an Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT)-based publish-subscribe messaging system. Proof-of-possession keys, bound to OAuth2.0 access tokens, are used to authenticate and authorize MQTT Clients. The protocol relies on TLS for confidentiality and MQTT server (broker) authentication. 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? Nothing was special. 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? XXX Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Daniel Migault is the shepherd, Ben Kaduk is teh Area Director (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 the document and have no special concerns I am considering the document 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. None (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. None (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? The document went through several rounds of reviews. Though I came while the document was already a WG document. I have the impression that the number of reviewers were around 4. (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. NA (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? yes. wait the normative document are completed. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. Some are downward normative references as the mention standard that are part of other SDO (OASIS). (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). XXX (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. NA (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc. rfc 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 |
|
2020-09-03
|
07 | Daniel Migault | Notification list changed to Daniel Migault <daniel.migault@ericsson.com> |
|
2020-09-03
|
07 | Daniel Migault | Document shepherd changed to Daniel Migault |
|
2020-09-01
|
07 | Jim Schaad | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
|
2020-08-25
|
07 | Cigdem Sengul | New version available: draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-07.txt |
|
2020-08-25
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2020-08-25
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anthony Kirby <anthony@anthony.org>, Cigdem Sengul <csengul@acm.org>, Paul Fremantle <paul.fremantle@port.ac.uk> |
|
2020-08-25
|
07 | Cigdem Sengul | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-07-15
|
06 | Jim Schaad | Added to session: IETF-108: ace Wed-1100 |
|
2020-07-13
|
06 | Cigdem Sengul | New version available: draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-06.txt |
|
2020-07-13
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2020-07-13
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Paul Fremantle <paul.fremantle@port.ac.uk>, Anthony Kirby <anthony@anthony.org>, Cigdem Sengul <csengul@acm.org> |
|
2020-07-13
|
06 | Cigdem Sengul | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-05-28
|
05 | Cigdem Sengul | New version available: draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-05.txt |
|
2020-05-28
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2020-05-28
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Cigdem Sengul <csengul@acm.org>, Anthony Kirby <anthony@anthony.org>, Paul Fremantle <paul.fremantle@port.ac.uk> |
|
2020-05-28
|
05 | Cigdem Sengul | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-03-09
|
04 | Cigdem Sengul | New version available: draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-04.txt |
|
2020-03-09
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2020-03-09
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Paul Fremantle <paul.fremantle@port.ac.uk>, Cigdem Sengul <csengul@acm.org>, Anthony Kirby <anthony@anthony.org> |
|
2020-03-09
|
04 | Cigdem Sengul | Uploaded new revision |
|
2019-12-20
|
03 | Cigdem Sengul | New version available: draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-03.txt |
|
2019-12-20
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2019-12-20
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: ace-chairs@ietf.org, Cigdem Sengul <cigdem.sengul@nominet.uk>, Paul Fremantle <paul.fremantle@port.ac.uk>, Anthony Kirby <anthony@anthony.org> |
|
2019-12-20
|
03 | Cigdem Sengul | Uploaded new revision |
|
2019-11-03
|
02 | Cigdem Sengul | New version available: draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-02.txt |
|
2019-11-03
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2019-11-03
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: ace-chairs@ietf.org, Cigdem Sengul <cigdem.sengul@nominet.uk>, Paul Fremantle <paul.fremantle@port.ac.uk>, Anthony Kirby <anthony@anthony.org> |
|
2019-11-03
|
02 | Cigdem Sengul | Uploaded new revision |
|
2019-10-05
|
01 | Cigdem Sengul | New version available: draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-01.txt |
|
2019-10-05
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2019-10-05
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: ace-chairs@ietf.org, Cigdem Sengul <cigdem.sengul@nominet.uk>, Paul Fremantle <paul.fremantle@port.ac.uk>, Anthony Kirby <anthony@anthony.org> |
|
2019-10-05
|
01 | Cigdem Sengul | Uploaded new revision |
|
2019-05-08
|
00 | (System) | This document now replaces draft-sengul-ace-mqtt-tls-profile instead of None |
|
2019-05-08
|
00 | Cigdem Sengul | New version available: draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-00.txt |
|
2019-05-08
|
00 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2019-05-08
|
00 | Cigdem Sengul | Request for posting confirmation emailed to submitter and authors: Cigdem Sengul <Cigdem.Sengul@nominet.uk>, Cigdem Sengul <cigdem.sengul@nominet.uk>, Paul Fremantle <paul.fremantle@port.ac.uk>, Anthony … Request for posting confirmation emailed to submitter and authors: Cigdem Sengul <Cigdem.Sengul@nominet.uk>, Cigdem Sengul <cigdem.sengul@nominet.uk>, Paul Fremantle <paul.fremantle@port.ac.uk>, Anthony Kirby <anthony@anthony.org> |
|
2019-05-08
|
00 | Cigdem Sengul | Uploaded new revision |