Group Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments (Group OSCORE)
draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-26

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/