# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*
[...]
## 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?
There is broad agreement that this document should go forward, and a core group
of people who have satisfied themselves about the technical details.
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)?
The number of implementations is limited, as the underlying EDHOC protocol
(LAKE WG) has only just reached the IESG and needs to be implemented first.
Since EDHOC has recently made an on-wire change that also required to make a
change in the implementation, there is a certain reluctance to commit to
implementations before the document is approved. There is a common sentiment
that implementing this protocol will be a matter of course in the emerging
CoAP/EDHOC implementations. An early example for this is the following
implementation that includes the OSCORE-EDHOC protocol:
* https://github.com/rikard-sics/californium/tree/edhoc
## 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.
OSCORE-EDHOC is based on and closely interacts with EDHOC, a protocol of the
LAKE WG. There is a good overlap between the LAKE WG members and CoRE, so no
additional reviews were deemed necessary.
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.
The document makes registrations in the [Target Attributes registry in the
"Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Parameters" registry group
(IANA.core-parameters)][r1]. The shepherd believes the registration
requirements are fulfilled, but no DE has been appointed for that registry yet
as the [document][r2] establishing the registry is still in processing.
[r1]:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-core-target-attr-05.html#name-structure-of-entries
[r2]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-core-target-attr/
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]?
N/A
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.
Besides the author's checks, the shepherd has checked the examples (no other
FDT in the document).
## 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?
Yes on all counts.
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?
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?
This is intended as a Proposed Standard document, as it documents a protocol
intended as a standard for interoperability.
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.
Confirmations by the authors (copied to core@ietf.org):
* [x] Francesca Palombini
* [x] Marco Tiloca
* [x] Rikard Höglund
* [x] Stefan Hristozov
* [x] Göran Selander
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.
Yes (via 12 and recent activity in WG meetings and on the list).
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.)
Downref to draft-ietf-core-target-attr, which will likely be approved before
this document.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
All documents listed as normative are appropriately so.
There are three documents listed as informative that are only used as
references in registrations in the [EDHOC Authentication Credential Types
Registry][r3] created in this document; this can be debated either way (clearly
they don't require "must be read to understand or implement the technology in
the new RFC, or whose technology must be present for the technology in the new
RFC to work", but they aren't really "for information" only either). (We often
have this uncertainty where a document creates an extension point and exercises
that right away [RFC9170]...)
[r3]:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-core-oscore-edhoc-08.html#name-edhoc-authentication-creden
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
N/A
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.
(See 14 above.)
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?
(See 14 above.)
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]).
Yes on all counts.
See also 21 below.
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 8.4][r4] provides extensive instructions to the DE of the new registry.
The DEs for this registry should probably be the same as for other registries
in the registry group, e.g., EDHOC authors (which overlap with the authors of
OSCORE-EDHOC).
[r4]:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-core-oscore-edhoc-08.html#name-expert-review-instructions
[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/