Group Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments (Group OSCORE)
draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-28

Because of the interdependency with draft-ietf-core-groupcomm-bis, the RFC Editor would not be able to progress this document until that one is also approved. Holding while that document finishes dealing with IESG feedback.

[Ballot comment]
Note I am concerned about long term use of static-static DiffieHellman keys, and would appreciate an answer to my question below.




        The AEAD Algorithm (see Section 3.1 of [RFC8613]) SHALL identify

I think this should just say "identifies" without a SHALL ?

        The HKDF Algorithm (see Section 3.1 of [RFC8613]) SHALL identify the

same

        The ID Context parameter (see Sections 3.1 and 3.3 of [RFC8613]) SHALL contain

same

        The Common IV parameter (see Section 3.1 of [RFC8613]) SHALL identify the

same

Section 2.1.7

Probably state that an AEAD is prefered over non-AEAD ?

Section 2.1.9

        deriving a keystream to encrypt/decrypt

Maybe call this a symmetric key instead of keystream ? Same for the use of KEYSTREAM?


It could be better clarified what the lifetime is of static-static DH keys (eg that
rejoining the group, a reboot, etc results in a new "long term" identifier with respect
to the static-static DH keys. I could not figure out from this document whether there is
any maximum keylife for these type of keys before a rekey/rejoin event must happen.


Section 14

        The key pair can, for example, be generated by the endpoint or provisioned during manufacturing.

I assume this key is only used for authenticating to Group Manager(s)
and not for the static-static DiffieHellman because that would be severely
lacking in forward security.

        A possible way to ameliorate

Please find another word for "ameliorate". If I don't know this word, many more people won't
know what it means.

        Randomness requirements for security are described in [RFC4086].

I think 4086 is very oudated and bad, and wouldn't mind not using it and instead stating something
about using proper cryptographic strength randomness provided by the OS/hardware instead.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to the authors and the WG for their work on this document.

I have a question about the normative references that I am moving from DISCUSS to COMMENTS following a similar discussion with the rest of the IESG in a recent telechat:

Why would the reference to an IANA registry COSE.Algorithms be a normative reference instead of an informative reference. I find the actual normative portions are in RFCs 8613, 5869, and 9053 - all of which are correctly categorized as normative. Isn't the pointer to the registry just an helpful reference for readers?

[Ballot comment]
# Andy Newton, ART AD, comments for draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-27
CC @anewton1998

* line numbers:
  - https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-27.txt&submitcheck=True

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

Thanks to Patrik Fältström for the ARTART review.

[Ballot comment]
Hi Marco, Göran, Francesca, John, and Rikard,

Thanks for the effort put into this spec. I appreciate the discussion in Section 12, in particular.

Please find below some comments:

# Re-keying & Observe

CURRENT:
  *  Long exchange: an exchange of messages associated with a request
      that is a group request and/or an Observe request [RFC7641].

I wonder whether there any impact of key change on installed observed.

# To whom?

CURRENT:
  How the Security Context is established by the group members is out
  of scope for this document, but if there is more than one Security
  Context applicable to a message, then the endpoints MUST be able to
                                                            ^^^^^^^^^^
  tell which Security Context was latest established.
  ^^^^^^

# Capability

CURRENT:
  An endpoint of the group may use the group mode (see Section 7), the
  pairwise mode (see Section 8), or both, depending on the modes it
  supports and on the parameters of the Security Context. 

Is there a need to know in advance with a remote endpoint supports one or all these modes? Does that have impact on how contexts are established?

# How the limit is know? Can that be retrieved from the system and exposed to the app?

CURRENT:
  An endpoint may admit a maximum number of Recipient Contexts for a
  same Security Context, e.g., due to memory limitations.  After
  reaching that limit, the endpoint has to delete a current Recipient
  Context to install a new one (see Section 2.6.1.2).  It is up to the
  application to define policies for Recipient Contexts to delete.

# Tracking/Logging

CURRENT:
  The Security Context may contain a large and variable number of
  Recipient Contexts.  While Group OSCORE in itself does not establish
  a maximum number of Recipient Contexts, there are circumstances by
  which implementations might choose to discard Recipient Contexts or
  have to do so in accordance with enforced application policies.  Such
  circumstances include the need to reclaim memory or other resources
  on the node hosting the endpoint, for example because the predefined
  maximum number of Recipient Contexts has been reached in the Security
  Context (see Section 2.2).

How these discarded contexts are tracked? Are there some king of alarm/notification to warn this?

# Is there a reason what the Group Manager may not be informed? Shouldn’t such event be logged locally, btw? Shouldn’t the manager be contacted prior to exhaustion and not wait for full exhaustion?

CURRENT:
  Upon exhausting the Sender Sequence Number space, the endpoint MUST
  NOT use this Security Context to protect further messages including a
  Partial IV.

  When approaching the exhaustion of the Sender Sequence Number space,
  the endpoint SHOULD inform the Group Manager, retrieve new Security
  Context parameters from the Group Manager (see Section 2.6.3), and
  use them to derive a new Sender Context (see Section 2.2). 

# Not new behavior: cite as quote

OLD:
  As per [RFC7252][I-D.ietf-core-groupcomm-bis], group requests sent
  over multicast MUST be Non-confirmable, and thus are not
  retransmitted by the CoAP messaging layer. 

NEW:
  As per [RFC7252][I-D.ietf-core-groupcomm-bis], “group requests sent
  over multicast MUST be Non-confirmable”, and thus are not
  retransmitted by the CoAP messaging layer. 

And

OLD:
  According to Section 5.2.3 of [RFC7252], responses to Non-confirmable
  group requests SHOULD also be Non-confirmable,

NEW:
  According to Section 5.2.3 of [RFC7252], “responses to Non-confirmable
  group requests SHOULD also be Non-confirmable”,

Cheers,
Med

[Ballot discuss]
Thanks to the authors and the WG for their work on this document.

I have a question about the normative references that I would like to discuss: Why would the reference to an IANA registry COSE.Algorithms be a normative reference instead of an informative reference. I find the actual normative portions are in RFCs 8613, 5869, and 9053 - all of which are correctly categorized as normative. Isn't the pointer to the registry just an helpful reference for readers?

[Ballot comment]

While I'm balloting No Obj on this draft, I'd like a response to the comments I've listed below. 

This draft is appears to be quite complicated (and require knowledge of no less than 9-10 specifications).  A quick review shows that there are plenty of places where signat encryption, and key agreement are confused. Crisper use of terminology here would be best. I've given an example below, and I'd be happy to help work on this. 

Thanks to Mališa Vučinić for their secdir review.



Section 1.1:  Use of the phrase 'Master Secret' is being replaced (TLS has already removed it).  Will it be replaced here, maybe with a note to the pre existing specifications? [Note:  this applies to 'Master xxxx']

Section 2, Authentication Credential Format:  This section references Section 2.1.5, which then references Section 2.4 without much clarifying information.  Recommend skipping the double ref and just reference Section 2.4 here.

Section 2, Signature Encryption Key:  Not entirely sure what this means.  Is this a symmetric key? (it is apparently an AEAD or something like that.

Section 2, pairwise mode:  static-static DH to derived a shared secret, etc. isn't common...  for a reason.  Please explain why it is ok in this specification.

Section 2.1.7, para 2:  It is odd that AES CBC mode is being suggested, give the issues with the CBC mode.  What makes CBC mode more appropriate than CTR mode?

Section 2.5:  EdDSA and ECDSA are mentioned in the section, I assume one would use ECDH for key agreement (vice encryption).  While this section doesn't need every detail to be perfect, it needs to be closer than this.  Perhaps something like:  'Elliptic Curve Cryptographic public/private key pairs can be used for both signature and key agreement'. 

Section 5.1, para 3:  'remain active indefinitely',  seems like a bad idea, especially if the group is rekeyed.  Maybe put a cap on how long?  Especially from a cryptography point of view.

Section 14.11:  Is secure distribution of these keys discussed in any of the many of specifications referenced?  It does not appear to be addressed in this draft.  (nor is it listed as out of scope).

[Ballot comment]
# Orie Steele, ART AD, comments for draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-27
CC @OR13

* line numbers:
  - https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-27.txt&submitcheck=True

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Comments

Thanks to Patrik Fältström for the ARTART review.
The review contains security related comments which I am not in a position to comment on.

### public key algorithm is fully described?

```
776   If authentication credentials are CBOR Web Tokens (CWTs) or CWT
777   Claims Sets (CCSs), the public key algorithm is fully described by a
778   COSE key type and its "kty" and "crv" parameters.
```

https://www.iana.org/assignments/cose/cose.xhtml#elliptic-curves


Later:

```
897       In case the other endpoint's public key has COSE Key Type "EC2"
898       [RFC9053] (e.g., for the curves P-256, P-384, and P-521), then the
899       public key is used as is.  In case the other endpoint's public key
900       has COSE Key Type "OKP" [RFC9053], the procedure is described in
901       Section 5 of [RFC7748].  In particular, if the public key is for
902       X25519 or X448, it is used as is.  Otherwise, if the public key is
903       for the curve Ed25519 or Ed448, it is first mapped to Montgomery
904       coordinates (see Section 2.5.2).
```

X25519 is curve value 4, but Ed25519 is curve value 6, both are OKP (good).
However, P-256 is curve value 1, and supports many algorithms and is of key type EC2.

> This document defines these algorithms to be used with the curves P-256, P-384, P-521, X25519, and X448. Implementations MUST verify that the key type and curve are correct.

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9053.html#section-6.3.1-8

I don't understand what "fully described" means in this context.
A key type and curve do not fully describe a key agreement or signature algorithm in absence of additional information.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for preparing this document and thanks also to Joerg Ott for his heplfpul TSV-ART review.

1) I include one topic here from the TSV-ART with an additional question:

Section 12.2, 2nd para states that "when possible, the delivery of rekeying
messages should use a reliable transport [...]"

This seems to suggest that an unreliable -- and possibly non-congestion
controlled -- transport is fine, too.  This appears risky if rapid membership
changes occur or are suggested in some way as this could cause floods of
rekeying messages.  Especially since (4th para), "The Group Manager MUST rekey
the group without undue delay when one or more endpoints leave the group."

An additional question: Is this a SHOULD use a reliable transport?
----

2) In the following:
/The use of an
  unreliable transport MUST NOT forego enforcing congestion control as
  appropriate for that transport./

(a) Could this be rewritten as a requirement as something like:
/A transport (reliable or unreliable) MUST enforce appropriate congestion control./
(b) I am content with the requirement, but it would be better if this requirement also pointed to some examples where this was satisfied in other documents.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-26. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

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

First, in the OSCORE Flag Bits registry in the Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Parameters registry group located at:

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

the existing registration will have its reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ] as follows:

Bit Position: 2
Name: Group Flag
Description: For using a Group OSCORE Security Context, set to 1 if the message is protected with the group mode
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Second, in the Target Attributes registry also in the Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Parameters registry group located at:

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

a single new registration will be made as follows:

Attribute Name: gosc
Brief Description: Hint: resource only accessible using Group OSCORE or OSCORE
Change Controller: IETF
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this document requests a registration in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we have initiated 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."

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 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.

# 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/

# 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/

# 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/

# 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/

# 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/

# 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/