Admin Interface for the OSCORE Group Manager
draft-ietf-ace-oscore-gm-admin-17

[Ballot comment]
Section 11.4
  *  Value: The numeric identifier for this permission.  Integer values
      greater than 65535 are marked as "Private Use".  All other values
      use the registration policy "Expert Review" (see Section 4.5 of
      [RFC8126]).

Consider adding a citation for “Private Use" with Section 4.1 of RFC8126.

[Ballot comment]
# IESG review of draft-ietf-ace-oscore-gm-admin-15

CC @MikeBishop

## Comments

### Section 3, paragraph 31-32
```
    When using the scope format as defined in this section, the
    permission set ("Tperm") of each admin scope entry MUST include the
    "List" permission.  It follows that, when expressing permissions for
    Administrators of OSCORE groups as defined in this document, an admin
    scope entry has the least significant bit of "Tperm" always set to 1.
```
What happens when a permission set that doesn't allow Listing is encountered? Is
this an error? Invalid according to the scope format? If it's possible to express,
then rules for handling it should be outlined.

```
    earlier in this section, respectively.  The two types of scope
    entries can be unambiguously distinguished by means of the least
    significant bit of their permission set "Tperm", which has value 0
    for the user scope entries and 1 for the admin scope entries.
```
If the LSB is going to be used to differentiate these types, omitting the required
permission would result in confusion about which type the entry expresses and therefore
potential misinterpretation of the remaining bits.

Consider fixing the LSB to 1 in the format rather than requiring the
presence of a permission at that bit. (The List permission can be implicit from
the existence of a scope, leaving the resulting format unchanged.)

### Section 6, paragraph 2
```
    For each operation, it is defined whether that operation is required
    or optional to support for an Administrator and for the Group
    Manager.  If an Administrator supports an operation, then the
    Administrator is able to produce and send the request associated with
    that operation.  If the Group Manager supports an operation, then the
```
It's unclear how the Administrator can be REQUIRED to implement a request that
it initiates. If it doesn't implement it, it simply won't happen. Perhaps better
to state where information retrieved by one operation is a prerequisite to other
operations the Administrator might wish to perform?

### Section 10.3, paragraph 6
```
        (see Section 6.4 and Section 6.5).  Also aligned with what is
        allowed by the granted authorization, the Administrator could
        ultimately delete the group configuration in question by deleting
        the corresponding group-configuration resource (see Section 6.8)
        and then create a new group configuration (see Section 6.3).
```
Does this suggest an attack vector where an attacker could corrupt a URI and induce
an authorized Administrator to delete a group the attacker could not itself
delete?

### Section 11, paragraph 2

Please add links to the relevant registries.

## Nits

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.

### Typos

#### Section 10.2, paragraph 1
```
-    compromised Group Manager would allow an adversary to also monitor
-                                                          -----
```

#### Section 10.2, paragraph 3
```
-    responsible for, after having experienced a reboot.
-                  -
```

#### Section 10.3, paragraph 2
```
-    'joining_uri' parameter, if the URI does not point to the Group
-                          -
```

#### Section 10.3, paragraph 4
```
-    sent by the Group Manager points to the same Group Manager, by
-                                                              -
```

### Grammar/style

#### Section 3, paragraph 29
```
erns, the encoded scope can be compact in size while allowing the Administrat
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
This wording could be more concise.

#### Section 8, paragraph 6
```
fferent groups. For a given group, oldest log entries are expected to be tho
                                  ^^^^^^
```
A determiner may be missing.

[Ballot comment]
Hi Marco, Rikard, Peter, and Francesca,

Thank you for the effort put into this well-written document. Special thanks for the detailed operational considerations and the discusson about various management actions, and  partiuclalry the handling of default values.

I only have very few edits/nits that I will sent in a PR for authors convenience.

Cheers,
Med

Request for IETF Last Call review by ARTART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Bron Gondwana. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.

Request for IETF Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Wes Hardaker. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-ace-oscore-gm-admin-14. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

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

First, in the ACE Groupcomm Parameters registry in the Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) registry group located at:

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

23 new registrations will be made as follows (with CBOR keys suggested by the authors in section 11.1 of the current draft):

Name: hkdf
CBOR Key: -1 (suggested)
CBOR Type: tstr or int
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: cred_fmt
CBOR Key: -2 (suggested)
CBOR Type: int
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: group_mode
CBOR Key: -3 (suggested)
CBOR Type: True or False
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: gp_enc_alg
CBOR Key: -4 (suggested)
CBOR Type: Null or tstr or int
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: sign_alg
CBOR Key: -5 (suggested)
CBOR Type: Null or tstr or int
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: sign_params
CBOR Key: -6 (suggested)
CBOR Type: Null or array
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: pairwise_mode
CBOR Key: -7 (suggested)
CBOR Type: True or False
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: alg
CBOR Key: -8 (suggested)
CBOR Type: Null or tstr or int
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: ecdh_alg
CBOR Key: -9 (suggested)
CBOR Type: Null or tstr or int
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: ecdh_params
CBOR Key: -10 (suggested)
CBOR Type: Null or array
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: det_req
CBOR Key: -25 (suggested)
CBOR Type: True or False
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: det_hash_alg
CBOR Key: -26 (suggested)
CBOR Type: tstr or int
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: rt
CBOR Key: -11 (suggested)
CBOR Type: tstr
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: active
CBOR Key: -12 (suggested)
CBOR Type: True or False
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: group_name
CBOR Key: -13 (suggested)
CBOR Type: tstr or #6.(any)
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: group_description
CBOR Key: -14 (suggested)
CBOR Type: Null or tstr
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: max_stale_sets
CBOR Key: -15 (suggested)
CBOR Type: uint
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: gid_reuse
CBOR Key: -16 (suggested)
CBOR Type: True or False
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: app_groups
CBOR Key: -17 (suggested)
CBOR Type: array
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: joining_uri
CBOR Key: -18 (suggested)
CBOR Type: tstr
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: as_uri
CBOR Key: -19 (suggested)
CBOR Type: tstr
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: conf_filter
CBOR Key: -27 (suggested)
CBOR Type: array
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: app_groups_diff
CBOR Key: -28 (suggested)
CBOR Type: array
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

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

Second, in the ACE Groupcomm Errors registry also in the Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) registry group located at:

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

three new registrations will be made as follows (with values suggested by the authors in section 11.2 of the current draft):

Value: 10 (suggested)
Description: Group currently active
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: 11 (suggested)
Description: Unable to determine a group name
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: 12 (suggested)
Description: Unsupported group configuration
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

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

Third, in the Resource Type (rt=) Link Target Attribute Values registry in the Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Parameters registry group located at:

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

two new registrations will be made as follows:

Value: core.osc.gcoll
Description: Group-collection resource of an OSCORE Group Manager
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: core.osc.gconf
Description: Group-configuration resource of an OSCORE Group Manager
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Fourth, a new registry is to be created called the Group OSCORE Admin Permissions registry. The new registry will be located in the Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) registry group located at:

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

The new registry will be managed via Expert Review as defined in [ RFC8126 ].

There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows:

Name Value Description Reference
List 0 Retrieve list of group configurations [ RFC-to-be ]
Create 1 Create new group configurations [ RFC-to-be ]
Read 2 Retrieve group configurations [ RFC-to-be ]
Write 3 Change group configurations [ RFC-to-be ]
Delete 4 Delete group configurations [ RFC-to-be ]

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

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

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

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

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2026-02-16):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: ace-chairs@ietf.org, ace@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ace-oscore-gm-admin@ietf.org, paul.wouters@aiven.io, tim.hollebeek@digicert.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Admin Interface for the OSCORE Group Manager) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Authentication and Authorization for
Constrained Environments WG (ace) to consider the following document: -
'Admin Interface for the OSCORE Group Manager'
  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 2026-02-16. 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


  Group communication for the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)
  can be secured using Group Object Security for Constrained RESTful
  Environments (Group OSCORE).  A Group Manager is responsible for
  handling the joining of new group members, as well as for managing
  and distributing the group keying material.  This document defines a
  RESTful admin interface at the Group Manager that allows an
  Administrator entity to create and delete OSCORE groups, as well as
  to retrieve and update their configuration.  The ACE framework for
  Authentication and Authorization is used to enforce authentication
  and authorization of the Administrator at the Group Manager.
  Protocol-specific transport profiles of ACE are used to achieve
  communication security, proof of possession, and server
  authentication.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ace-oscore-gm-admin/



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

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

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

Broad agreement.

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

No.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

This work relates to the OSCORE framework from the ACE working group, which is
widely used by the working group participants.

## Additional Reviews

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

The document is almost exclusively dedicated to ACE working group protocols and
technologies.

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

There is a media type discussed (application/ace-groupcomm+cbor). I am unsure
what review has happened or is required.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

No YANG module.

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

No such content.

## Document Shepherd Checks

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

The document is extremely extensive, detailed, and well written, and was extensively
reviewed by the group.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

SEC AD checklist was reviewed.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard. Datatracker is correct, and document headers match.
This is the correct document type.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

All authors responded that they are not aware of undeclared IP.

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

All authors confirmed they are willing to be an author.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There are some references that should be looked at more closely:

These are just a consequence of time elapsed.

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-13) exists of
    draft-ietf-core-groupcomm-bis-12

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-24) exists of
    draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-23

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of
    draft-amsuess-core-cachable-oscore-09

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of
    draft-ietf-cose-cbor-encoded-cert-11

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

The references look correct.

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

The references are all IETF documents.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 9053

Seems like a legit downref to me, and probably should be added to the registry.

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

No.

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

No.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The IANA considerations look good.

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

Section 10.5 describes expert review criteria.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

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

Broad agreement.

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

No.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

This work relates to the OSCORE framework from the ACE working group, which is
widely used by the working group participants.

## Additional Reviews

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

The document is almost exclusively dedicated to ACE working group protocols and
technologies.

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

There is a media type discussed (application/ace-groupcomm+cbor). I am unsure
what review has happened or is required.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

No YANG module.

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

No such content.

## Document Shepherd Checks

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

The document is extremely extensive, detailed, and well written, and was extensively
reviewed by the group.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

SEC AD checklist was reviewed.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard. Datatracker is correct, and document headers match.
This is the correct document type.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

All authors responded that they are not aware of undeclared IP.

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

All authors confirmed they are willing to be an author.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There are some references that should be looked at more closely:

These are just a consequence of time elapsed.

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-13) exists of
    draft-ietf-core-groupcomm-bis-12

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-24) exists of
    draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-23

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of
    draft-amsuess-core-cachable-oscore-09

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of
    draft-ietf-cose-cbor-encoded-cert-11

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

The references look correct.

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

The references are all IETF documents.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 9053

Seems like a legit downref to me, and probably should be added to the registry.

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

No.

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

No.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The IANA considerations look good.

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

Section 10.5 describes expert review criteria.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

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

Broad agreement.

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

No.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

This work relates to the OSCORE framework from the ACE working group, which is
widely used by the working group participants.

## Additional Reviews

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

The document is almost exclusively dedicated to ACE working group protocols and
technologies.

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

There is a media type discussed (application/ace-groupcomm+cbor). I am unsure
what review has happened or is required.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

No YANG module.

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

No such content.

## Document Shepherd Checks

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

The document is extremely extensive, detailed, and well written, and was extensively
reviewed by the group.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

SEC AD checklist was reviewed.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard. Datatracker is correct, and document headers match.
This is the correct document type.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

M. Tiloca
R. Hoglund
P. van der Stok
F. Palombini

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

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There are some references that should be looked at more closely:

These are just a consequence of time elapsed.

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-13) exists of
    draft-ietf-core-groupcomm-bis-12

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-24) exists of
    draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-23

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of
    draft-amsuess-core-cachable-oscore-09

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of
    draft-ietf-cose-cbor-encoded-cert-11

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

The references look correct.

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

The references are all IETF documents.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 9053

Seems like a legit downref to me, and probably should be added to the registry.

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

No.

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

No.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The IANA considerations look good.

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

Section 10.5 describes expert review criteria.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/