# 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/