## 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?
Extensive discussions occurred on the mailing list prior to the WGLC, and a few
additional comments were received during the WGLC. The authors have revised the
document to incorporate the feedback received, and it now appears to have
achieved broad agreement.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
Extended discussions took place on the mailing list concerning the appropriate
“kty” value to define and use for ML-DSA. The solution of introducing the new
Algorithm Key Pair (AKP) type seemed to gather working group support.
Additionally, comments were made about the specification of the “context”
string in ML-DSA, as well as the draft being too underspecified. The authors
addressed these comments during the WGLC.
Ultimately, none of the document updates encountered significant objections. No
one spoke against the adoption of the document during the WGLC. Consequently,
there was no particular controversy over specific points, nor were there
significant difficulties in reaching consensus.
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.)
I am not aware of any threatened appeals or extreme discontent.
4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?
The examples in Appendix A were generated using code specifically written for
the draft, as reported on the COSE mailing list
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cose/_IbCQoSJeXFG-GDZFlJZnZHCP1U/).
## 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.
The specification applies to both JOSE and COSE. Alignment with other working
groups that are specifying ML-DSA algorithms, such as LAMPS, was raised as a
point to consider during mailing list discussions. Additionally, it was noted
as desirable to obtain confirmation from an independent implementation of the
examples provided in Appendix A of the document.
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 criteria apply.
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]?
The document contains 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.
The document uses no formal language.
## Document Shepherd Checks
9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
Yes, I believe the document is ready. Some nits can be addressed later in the
process.
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?
Among the common Security Area issues, the document addresses the Threat Models
and Security Environment aspect in its Security Considerations section. Most
other Security Area concerns do not appear to be relevant. In particular, since
the registered algorithms already exist, they do not fall under the "New
Cryptography" category.
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?
Proposed Standard is being requested. This status seems appropriate for this
document, as it is the same status as the other COSE specifications that
register algorithms. The document header is correct, while the "Intended RFC
status" on the Datatracker needs to be updated.
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.
No IPR disclosures were issued against this document. I am not aware of any
reminders about IPR disclosure being sent to the authors.
13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.
Yes.
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.)
The idnits tool indicates multiple instances of too long lines in the document
and some warnings that could be fixed later in the process. There are also one
unused reference and one downref.
Other nits:
- Sections 8.1.4 and 8.1.5 should be subsections of the Section 8.1.3 "New COSE
Key Type Parameters". Also, they should now be called "AKP Public Key" and "AKP
Private Key", as it is the case with the "New JSON Web Key Parameters" Section
for JOSE; - "the following key types in [IANA.jose]" --> key type; - "the
security considerations of [...] applies" --> apply; - need to standardize the
usage of capital letters in specific expressions (eg: "AKP Key" vs "AKP key");
- the document "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) Key Thumbprint" is
now an RFC and the name of the normative reference can be updated to "RFC9679".
- need a comma after "When this key type is used" - "using th algorithms" -->
the
Otherwise, the document adheres to the Content Guidelines.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
The Informational RFC 9053 is a normative reference, which seems appropriate.
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
There is no such reference.
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.
There is a normative downward reference to the Informational RFC 9053.
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?
There is no such reference.
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.
Publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFCs.
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]).
Sections 8.1.4 and 8.1.5 should be subsections of the Section 8.1.3 "New COSE
Key Type Parameters". Also, they should now be called "AKP Public Key" and "AKP
Private Key", as it is the case with the "New JSON Web Key Parameters" Section
for JOSE.
The placeholders “Reference: RFC XXXX” and “Specification Document(s): RFC
XXXX” in the IANA Considerations section will need to be updated.
Otherwise, the IANA actions are clearly described and appropriate.
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.
The specification does not create any new IANA registry; it only adds entries
to existing registries.
[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/