Group Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments (Group OSCORE)
draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-26
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2025-07-16
|
26 | Magnus Westerlund | Request for IETF Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Joerg Ott |
2025-07-15
|
26 | Tero Kivinen | Request for IETF Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Mališa Vučinić |
2025-07-15
|
26 | David Dong | IANA Experts State changed to Reviews assigned |
2025-07-14
|
26 | Patrik Fältström | Request for IETF Last Call review by ARTART Completed: Almost Ready. Reviewer: Patrik Fältström. Sent review to list. |
2025-07-11
|
26 | Barry Leiba | Request for IETF Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Patrik Fältström |
2025-07-09
|
26 | Jean Mahoney | Request for IETF Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Paul Kyzivat |
2025-07-08
|
26 | Morgan Condie | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2025-07-08
|
26 | Morgan Condie | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2025-07-29): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: christian@amsuess.com, core-chairs@ietf.org, core@ietf.org, draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm@ietf.org, mbishop@evequefou.be … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2025-07-29): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: christian@amsuess.com, core-chairs@ietf.org, core@ietf.org, draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm@ietf.org, mbishop@evequefou.be Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Group Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments (Group OSCORE)) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Constrained RESTful Environments WG (core) to consider the following document: - 'Group Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments (Group OSCORE)' 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 2025-07-29. 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 defines the security protocol Group Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments (Group OSCORE), providing end-to-end security of CoAP messages exchanged between members of a group, e.g., sent over IP multicast. In particular, the described protocol defines how OSCORE is used in a group communication setting to provide source authentication for CoAP group requests, sent by a client to multiple servers, and for protection of the corresponding CoAP responses. Group OSCORE also defines a pairwise mode where each member of the group can efficiently derive a symmetric pairwise key with each other member of the group for pairwise OSCORE communication. Group OSCORE can be used between endpoints communicating with CoAP or CoAP-mappable HTTP. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2025-07-08
|
26 | Morgan Condie | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2025-07-08
|
26 | Morgan Condie | Last call announcement was changed |
2025-07-08
|
26 | Mike Bishop | Last call was requested |
2025-07-08
|
26 | Mike Bishop | Last call announcement was generated |
2025-07-08
|
26 | Mike Bishop | Ballot approval text was generated |
2025-07-08
|
26 | Mike Bishop | Ballot writeup was generated |
2025-07-08
|
26 | Mike Bishop | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2025-07-05
|
26 | (System) | Changed action holders to Mike Bishop (IESG state changed) |
2025-07-05
|
26 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed |
2025-07-05
|
26 | Marco Tiloca | New version available: draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-26.txt |
2025-07-05
|
26 | Marco Tiloca | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Marco Tiloca) |
2025-07-05
|
26 | Marco Tiloca | Uploaded new revision |
2025-05-28
|
25 | (System) | Changed action holders to John Preuß Mattsson, Göran Selander, Francesca Palombini, Marco Tiloca, Rikard Höglund (IESG state changed) |
2025-05-28
|
25 | Mike Bishop | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
2025-04-07
|
25 | Mike Bishop | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2025-03-20
|
25 | Carsten Bormann | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents ## 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 are several in the WG who did not speak on the subject, but a good subset participated in discussions and reviews. Beyond that, the document is uncontestedly a critical dependency of draft-ietf-core-groupcomm-bis (which brings indirect support from more of the group). 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? The only rough points were with WG-external contacts on the use of a group memeber's key to do both ECDH and ECDSA (that has been addressed by a proof paper) and registering non-AEAD algorithms for COSE (overtaken by RFC9459 that registered them for other purposes). 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)? Section 13 of the document lists the implementations status along with an interop report. * Californium (Java; RISE / Rikard Höglund) * aiocoap (Python; Christian Amsüss) At least three more implementations were tested on older versions, and have not been updated to the latest draft. ## 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. No external interactions on the protocol level. Outside of the organizations WG participants are also involved with, the most this had in terms of external interaction was with the cryptographic research community, as it prompted the [Thormarker] paper. 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. No such review was 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. There are chunks of CDDL that extend structures in RFC8613; they pass both the cddlc and the cddl-rs implementation. ## 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 ready for hand-off. 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? No reviews have been requested; a sec area review will make sense. 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? The document is on track for Proposed Standard; that fits for a protocol specification. 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. Current and previous authors have been notified to file any remaining disclosures. All current authors confirmed that anything relevant is filed. 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 five authors confirmed. 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.) 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. The classification is suitable. Noteworthy considerations were: * following the COSE.Algorithms reference (an IANA registry in the normative references) is crucial not just for interoperable but also for secure use of the specification; RFC5869 is fine to not be normative because . * Some documents (eg. RFC6979) are referred to from normative statements; while it is likely that implementers will build fine implementations of the specification without having read them, their "technology must be present" even for "optional features to work"[iesg]. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? All normative and even informative references are available. 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. RFC9053 is a new downref; it populates algorithms into a registry documented in its (standards track) companion document RFC9052. This is also a downref of draft-ietf-core-groupcomm-bis (see next item). 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? draft-ietf-core-groupcomm-bis has been submitted in bundle with this document. 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. It merely utilizes extension points established in previous documents, without updating the documents themselves. 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 registrations are fine. (No new registries are set up). 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. No new registries are set up. [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/ [iesg]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-iesg-statement-normative-and-informative-references-20060419/ |
2025-03-20
|
25 | Carsten Bormann | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2025-03-20
|
25 | Carsten Bormann | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2025-03-20
|
25 | (System) | Changed action holders to Mike Bishop (IESG state changed) |
2025-03-20
|
25 | Carsten Bormann | Responsible AD changed to Mike Bishop |
2025-03-20
|
25 | Carsten Bormann | Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested |
2025-03-20
|
25 | Christian Amsüss | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents ## 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 are several in the WG who did not speak on the subject, but a good subset participated in discussions and reviews. Beyond that, the document is uncontestedly a critical dependency of draft-ietf-core-groupcomm-bis (which brings indirect support from more of the group). 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? The only rough points were with WG-external contacts on the use of a group memeber's key to do both ECDH and ECDSA (that has been addressed by a proof paper) and registering non-AEAD algorithms for COSE (overtaken by RFC9459 that registered them for other purposes). 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)? Section 13 of the document lists the implementations status along with an interop report. * Californium (Java; RISE / Rikard Höglund) * aiocoap (Python; Christian Amsüss) At least three more implementations were tested on older versions, and have not been updated to the latest draft. ## 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. No external interactions on the protocol level. Outside of the organizations WG participants are also involved with, the most this had in terms of external interaction was with the cryptographic research community, as it prompted the [Thormarker] paper. 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. No such review was 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. There are chunks of CDDL that extend structures in RFC8613; they pass both the cddlc and the cddl-rs implementation. ## 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 ready for hand-off. 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? No reviews have been requested; a sec area review will make sense. 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? The document is on track for Proposed Standard; that fits for a protocol specification. 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. Current and previous authors have been notified to file any remaining disclosures. All current authors confirmed that anything relevant is filed. 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 five authors confirmed. 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.) 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. The classification is suitable. Noteworthy considerations were: * following the COSE.Algorithms reference (an IANA registry in the normative references) is crucial not just for interoperable but also for secure use of the specification; RFC5869 is fine to not be normative because . * Some documents (eg. RFC6979) are referred to from normative statements; while it is likely that implementers will build fine implementations of the specification without having read them, their "technology must be present" even for "optional features to work"[iesg]. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? All normative and even informative references are available. 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. RFC9053 is a new downref; it populates algorithms into a registry documented in its (standards track) companion document RFC9052. This is also a downref of draft-ietf-core-groupcomm-bis (see next item). 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? draft-ietf-core-groupcomm-bis has been submitted in bundle with this document. 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. It merely utilizes extension points established in previous documents, without updating the documents themselves. 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 registrations are fine. (No new registries are set up). 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. No new registries are set up. [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/ [iesg]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-iesg-statement-normative-and-informative-references-20060419/ |
2025-03-16
|
25 | Marco Tiloca | New version available: draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-25.txt |
2025-03-16
|
25 | Marco Tiloca | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Marco Tiloca) |
2025-03-16
|
25 | Marco Tiloca | Uploaded new revision |
2025-03-16
|
24 | Christian Amsüss | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents ## 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 are several in the WG who did not speak on the subject, but a good subset participated in discussions and reviews. Beyond that, the document is uncontestedly a critical dependency of draft-ietf-core-groupcomm-bis (which brings indirect support from more of the group). 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? The only rough points were with WG-external contacts on the use of a group memeber's key to do both ECDH and ECDSA (that has been addressed by a proof paper) and registering non-AEAD algorithms for COSE (overtaken by RFC9459 that registered them for other purposes). 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)? Section 13 of the document lists the implementations status along with an interop report. * Californium (Java; RISE / Rikard Höglund) * aiocoap (Python; Christian Amsüss) At least three more implementations were tested on older versions, and have not been updated to the latest draft. ## 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. No external interactions on the protocol level. Outside of the organizations WG participants are also involved with, the most this had in terms of external interaction was with the cryptographic research community, as it prompted the [Thormarker] paper. 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. No such review was 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. There are chunks pieces of CDDL that extend structures in RFC8613; they pass both the cddlc and the cddl-rs implementation. ## 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 ready for hand-off. A minor fix is pending for -25. 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? No reviews have been requested; a sec area review will make sense. 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? The document is on track for Proposed Standard; that fits for a protocol specification. 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. Current and previous authors have been notified to file any remaining disclosures. All current authors confirmed that anything relevant is filed. 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 five authors confirmed. 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.) All nits discovered were false positives, or will be fixed in the pending -25. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. Two items are under discussion as by the present review: * RFC6979 (might move to informative) * RFC5869 (might be normative) The others are fine. In particular, following the COSE.Algorithms reference (an IANA registry in the normative references) is crucial not just for interoperable but also for secure use of the specification; RFC5869 is fine to not be normative because . 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? All normative and even informative references are available. 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. RFC9053 is a new downref; it populates algorithms into a registry documented in its (standards track) companion document RFC9052. 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? draft-ietf-core-groupcomm-bis will be submitted in bundle with this document. 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. It merely utilizes extension points established in previous documents, without updating the documents themselves. 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 necessity for 15.2 is being discussed; other than that, the registrations fine. (No new registries are set up). 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. No new registries are set up. [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/ |
2025-03-16
|
24 | Christian Amsüss | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents ## 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 are several in the WG who did not speak on the subject, but a good subset participated in discussions and reviews. Beyond that, the document is uncontestedly a critical dependency of draft-ietf-core-groupcomm-bis (which brings indirect support from more of the group). 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? The only rough points were with WG-external contacts on the use of a group memeber's key to do both ECDH and ECDSA (that has been addressed by a proof paper) and registering non-AEAD algorithms for COSE (overtaken by RFC9459 that registered them for other purposes). 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)? Section 13 of the document lists the implementations status along with an interop report. * Californium (Java; RISE / Rikard Höglund) * aiocoap (Python; Christian Amsüss) At least three more implementations were tested on older versions, and have not been updated to the latest draft. ## 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. No external interactions on the protocol level. Outside of the organizations WG participants are also involved with, the most this had in terms of external interaction was with the cryptographic research community, as it prompted the [Thormarker] paper. 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. No such review was 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. There are chunks pieces of CDDL that extend structures in RFC8613; they pass both the cddlc and the cddl-rs implementation. ## 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 ready for hand-off. A minor fix is pending for -25. 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? No reviews have been requested; a sec area review will make sense. 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? The document is on track for Proposed Standard; that fits for a protocol specification. 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. Current and previous authors have been notified to file any remaining disclosures. All current authors confirmed that anything relevant is filed. 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 five authors confirmed. 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.) All nits discovered were false positives, or will be fixed in the pending -25. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. Two items are under discussion as by the present review: * RFC6979 (might move to informative) * RFC5869 (might be normative) The others are fine. In particular, following the COSE.Algorithms reference (an IANA registry in the normative references) is crucial not just for interoperable but also for secure use of the specification; RFC5869 is fine to not be normative because . 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? All normative and even informative references are available. 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. RFC9053 is a new downref; it populates algorithms into a registry documented in its (standards track) companion document RFC9052. 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? draft-ietf-core-groupcomm-bis will be submitted in bundle with this document. 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. It merely utilizes extension points established in previous documents, without updating the documents themselves. 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 necessity for 15.2 is being discussed; other than that, the registrations fine. (No new registries are set up). 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. No new registries are set up. [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/ |
2025-03-15
|
24 | Christian Amsüss | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents The review is incomplete; @@@ marks places where changes are still expected. ## Document History 1. Does the … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents The review is incomplete; @@@ marks places where changes are still expected. ## 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 are several in the WG who did not speak on the subject, but a good subset participated in discussions and reviews. Beyond that, the document is uncontestedly a critical dependency of draft-ietf-core-groupcomm-bis (which brings indirect support from more of the group). 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? The only rough points were with WG-external contacts on the use of a group memeber's key to do both ECDH and ECDSA (that has been addressed by a proof paper) and registering non-AEAD algorithms for COSE (overtaken by RFC9459 that registered them for other purposes). 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)? Section 13 of the document lists the implementations status along with an interop report. * Californium (Java; RISE / Rikard Höglund) * aiocoap (Python; Christian Amsüss) ## 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. No external interactions on the protocol level. Outside of the organizations WG participants are also involved with, the most this had in terms of external interaction was with the cryptographic research community, as it prompted the [Thormarker] paper. 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. No such review was 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. There are chunks pieces of CDDL that extend structures in RFC8613; they pass both the cddlc and the cddl-rs implementation. ## 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 ready for hand-off. @@@ A few notes to enhance clarity around parts that caused troubles in the last interop are being checked 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? No reviews have been requested; a sec area review will make sense. 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? The document is on track for Proposed Standard; that fits for a protocol specification. 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. Current and previous authors have been notified to file any remaining disclosures. @@@ confirmed that anything relevant is filed. (JPM) 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.) All nits discovered were false positives, or trivially fixed in the next upload. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. Two items are under discussion as by the present review: * RFC6979 (might move to informative) * RFC5869 (might be normative) The others are fine. In particular, following the COSE.Algorithms reference (an IANA registry in the normative references) is crucial not just for interoperable but also for secure use of the specification; RFC5869 is fine to not be normative because . 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? All normative and even informative references are available. 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. RFC9053 is a new downref; it populates algorithms into a registry documented in its (standards track) companion document RFC9052. 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? draft-ietf-core-groupcomm-bis will be submitted in bundle with this document. 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. It merely utilizes extension points established in previous documents, without updating the documents themselves. 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 necessity for 15.2 is being discussed; other than that, the registrations fine. (No new registries are set up). 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. No new registries are set up. [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/ |
2025-03-15
|
24 | Christian Amsüss | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents ## 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 are several in the WG who did not speak on the subject, but a good subset participated in discussions and reviews. Beyond that, the document is uncontestedly a critical dependency of draft-ietf-core-groupcomm-bis (which brings indirect support from more of the group). 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? The only rough points were with WG-external contacts on the use of a group memeber's key to do both ECDH and ECDSA (that has been addressed by a proof paper) and registering non-AEAD algorithms for COSE (overtaken by RFC9459 that registered them for other purposes). 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)? There are 2 interoperable public implementations: * Californium (Rikard Höglund, Marco Tiloca) * aiocoap (Christian Amsüss) ## 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. No external interactions on the protocol level. Outside of the organizations WG participants are also involved with, the most this had in terms of external interaction was with the cryptographic research community, as it prompted the [Thormarker] paper. 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. No such review was 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. There are chunks pieces of CDDL that extend structures in RFC8613; they pass both the cddlc and the cddl-rs implementation. ## 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 ready for hand-off. @@@ A few notes to enhance clarity around parts that caused troubles in the last interop are being checked 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? No reviews have been requested; a sec area review will make sense. 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? The document is on track for Proposed Standard; that fits for a protocol specification. 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. Current and previous authors have been notified to file any remaining disclosures. @@@ confirmed that anything relevant is filed. (JPM) 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.) All nits discovered were false positives, or trivially fixed in the next upload. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. Two items are under discussion as by the present review: * RFC6979 (might move to informative) * RFC5869 (might be normative) The others are fine. In particular, following the COSE.Algorithms reference (an IANA registry in the normative references) is crucial not just for interoperable but also for secure use of the specification; RFC5869 is fine to not be normative because . 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? All normative and even informative references are available. 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. RFC9053 is a new downref; it populates algorithms into a registry documented in its (standards track) companion document RFC9052. 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? draft-ietf-core-groupcomm-bis will be submitted in bundle with this document. 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. It merely utilizes extension points established in previous documents, without updating the documents themselves. 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 necessity for 15.2 is being discussed; other than that, the registrations fine. (No new registries are set up). 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. No new registries are set up. [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/ |
2025-02-08
|
24 | Marco Tiloca | New version available: draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-24.txt |
2025-02-08
|
24 | Marco Tiloca | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Marco Tiloca) |
2025-02-08
|
24 | Marco Tiloca | Uploaded new revision |
2024-09-26
|
23 | Marco Tiloca | New version available: draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-23.txt |
2024-09-26
|
23 | Marco Tiloca | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Marco Tiloca) |
2024-09-26
|
23 | Marco Tiloca | Uploaded new revision |
2024-08-28
|
22 | Marco Tiloca | New version available: draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-22.txt |
2024-08-28
|
22 | Marco Tiloca | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Marco Tiloca) |
2024-08-28
|
22 | Marco Tiloca | Uploaded new revision |
2024-03-04
|
21 | Marco Tiloca | New version available: draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-21.txt |
2024-03-04
|
21 | Marco Tiloca | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Marco Tiloca) |
2024-03-04
|
21 | Marco Tiloca | Uploaded new revision |
2023-09-02
|
20 | Marco Tiloca | New version available: draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-20.txt |
2023-09-02
|
20 | Marco Tiloca | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Marco Tiloca) |
2023-09-02
|
20 | Marco Tiloca | Uploaded new revision |
2023-07-10
|
19 | Marco Tiloca | New version available: draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-19.txt |
2023-07-10
|
19 | Marco Tiloca | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Marco Tiloca) |
2023-07-10
|
19 | Marco Tiloca | Uploaded new revision |
2023-06-22
|
18 | Marco Tiloca | New version available: draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-18.txt |
2023-06-22
|
18 | Marco Tiloca | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Marco Tiloca) |
2023-06-22
|
18 | Marco Tiloca | Uploaded new revision |
2022-12-20
|
17 | Marco Tiloca | New version available: draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-17.txt |
2022-12-20
|
17 | Marco Tiloca | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Marco Tiloca) |
2022-12-20
|
17 | Marco Tiloca | Uploaded new revision |
2022-11-01
|
16 | Marco Tiloca | Added to session: IETF-115: core Mon-1300 |
2022-10-24
|
16 | Marco Tiloca | New version available: draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-16.txt |
2022-10-24
|
16 | Marco Tiloca | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Marco Tiloca) |
2022-10-24
|
16 | Marco Tiloca | Uploaded new revision |
2022-09-05
|
15 | Marco Tiloca | New version available: draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-15.txt |
2022-09-05
|
15 | Marco Tiloca | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Marco Tiloca) |
2022-09-05
|
15 | Marco Tiloca | Uploaded new revision |
2022-04-02
|
14 | Carsten Bormann | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2022-04-02
|
14 | Carsten Bormann | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2022-04-02
|
14 | Carsten Bormann | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document |
2022-04-02
|
14 | Carsten Bormann | Notification list changed to christian@amsuess.com because the document shepherd was set |
2022-04-02
|
14 | Carsten Bormann | Document shepherd changed to Christian Amsüss |
2022-03-23
|
14 | Marco Tiloca | Added to session: IETF-113: core Fri-1000 |
2022-03-07
|
14 | Marco Tiloca | New version available: draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-14.txt |
2022-03-07
|
14 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Marco Tiloca) |
2022-03-07
|
14 | Marco Tiloca | Uploaded new revision |
2022-01-19
|
13 | Marco Tiloca | Added to session: interim-2022-core-01 |
2021-11-01
|
13 | Marco Tiloca | Added to session: IETF-112: core Mon-1600 |
2021-10-25
|
13 | Marco Tiloca | New version available: draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-13.txt |
2021-10-25
|
13 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Marco Tiloca) |
2021-10-25
|
13 | Marco Tiloca | Uploaded new revision |
2021-07-27
|
12 | Marco Tiloca | Added to session: IETF-111: core Wed-1200 |
2021-07-12
|
12 | Marco Tiloca | New version available: draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-12.txt |
2021-07-12
|
12 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Marco Tiloca) |
2021-07-12
|
12 | Marco Tiloca | Uploaded new revision |
2021-02-27
|
11 | Marco Tiloca | Added to session: IETF-110: core Mon-1700 |
2021-02-22
|
11 | Marco Tiloca | New version available: draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-11.txt |
2021-02-22
|
11 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-02-22
|
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Francesca Palombini , Goeran Selander , Jiye Park , Marco Tiloca , core-chairs@ietf.org |
2021-02-22
|
11 | Marco Tiloca | Uploaded new revision |
2020-11-14
|
10 | Marco Tiloca | Added to session: IETF-109: core Tue-1200 |
2020-11-02
|
10 | Marco Tiloca | New version available: draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-10.txt |
2020-11-02
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-11-02
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jiye Park , Francesca Palombini , Goeran Selander , Marco Tiloca |
2020-11-02
|
10 | Marco Tiloca | Uploaded new revision |
2020-09-10
|
09 | Marco Tiloca | Changed document external resources from: [] to: github_repo https://github.com/core-wg/oscore-groupcomm (Working Group Repo) |
2020-07-25
|
09 | Marco Tiloca | Added to session: IETF-108: core Fri-1410 |
2020-06-23
|
09 | Marco Tiloca | New version available: draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-09.txt |
2020-06-23
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-06-23
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jiye Park , Francesca Palombini , Marco Tiloca , Goeran Selander |
2020-06-23
|
09 | Marco Tiloca | Uploaded new revision |
2020-04-06
|
08 | Marco Tiloca | New version available: draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-08.txt |
2020-04-06
|
08 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Marco Tiloca) |
2020-04-06
|
08 | Marco Tiloca | Uploaded new revision |
2020-03-09
|
07 | Marco Tiloca | New version available: draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-07.txt |
2020-03-09
|
07 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Marco Tiloca) |
2020-03-09
|
07 | Marco Tiloca | Uploaded new revision |
2019-11-04
|
06 | Marco Tiloca | New version available: draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-06.txt |
2019-11-04
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-11-04
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Marco Tiloca , Jiye Park , Goeran Selander , Francesca Palombini |
2019-11-04
|
06 | Marco Tiloca | Uploaded new revision |
2019-07-05
|
05 | Marco Tiloca | New version available: draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-05.txt |
2019-07-05
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-07-05
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Marco Tiloca , Jiye Park , Goeran Selander , Francesca Palombini |
2019-07-05
|
05 | Marco Tiloca | Uploaded new revision |
2019-03-08
|
04 | Marco Tiloca | New version available: draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-04.txt |
2019-03-08
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-03-08
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Marco Tiloca , Jiye Park , Goeran Selander , Francesca Palombini |
2019-03-08
|
04 | Marco Tiloca | Uploaded new revision |
2018-10-22
|
03 | Marco Tiloca | New version available: draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-03.txt |
2018-10-22
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-10-22
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Marco Tiloca , Jiye Park , Goeran Selander , Francesca Palombini |
2018-10-22
|
03 | Marco Tiloca | Uploaded new revision |
2018-06-28
|
02 | Francesca Palombini | New version available: draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-02.txt |
2018-06-28
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-06-28
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Marco Tiloca , Jiye Park , Goeran Selander , Francesca Palombini |
2018-06-28
|
02 | Francesca Palombini | Uploaded new revision |
2018-03-05
|
01 | Francesca Palombini | New version available: draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-01.txt |
2018-03-05
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-03-05
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Marco Tiloca , Jiye Park , Goeran Selander , Francesca Palombini |
2018-03-05
|
01 | Francesca Palombini | Uploaded new revision |
2018-03-05
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Marco Tiloca , Jiye Park , Goeran Selander , Francesca Palombini |
2018-03-05
|
01 | Francesca Palombini | Uploaded new revision |
2018-03-05
|
01 | Francesca Palombini | Uploaded new revision |
2018-02-12
|
00 | Carsten Bormann | This document now replaces draft-tiloca-core-multicast-oscoap instead of None |
2018-02-12
|
00 | Francesca Palombini | New version available: draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-00.txt |
2018-02-12
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2018-02-12
|
00 | Francesca Palombini | Set submitter to "Francesca Palombini ", replaces to draft-tiloca-core-multicast-oscoap and sent approval email to group chairs: core-chairs@ietf.org |
2018-02-12
|
00 | Francesca Palombini | Uploaded new revision |