Fully-Specified Algorithms for JOSE and COSE
draft-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms-13

[Ballot discuss]
Thanks to Kathleen Moriarty for the SecDir review. Thanks to the authors for
resolving her comments. I have a few hopefully minor DISCUSS items I would
like to raise:


I think the Abstract should say a little more on what it updates on the mentioned
RFCs? eg the Recommended status of some algorithms specified?

Section 2.1:

What does "COSE Recommended" mean? Is this defined anywhere? Eg for TLS this
is defined in the IANA registry. It needs to be clear whether it means mandatory
to implement or not.

Section 2.2:

See above, but in addition also "JOSE Implementation Requirements". Are "Recommended"
and "Implementation Requirements" different things or the same thing?


Perhaps this document can ask IANA to add a Note: similar to TLS at
the top of their registry explaining this? I am also puzzled that for
example ed25519 is "Recommended Y" for COSE but "Optional" for JOSE? Is
this difference by design?

Section 6.1:

How does an implementation know the RSA key size of the peer ? I assume since
this doc isn't fixing it, that implementations have either a common unspecified
default (in which case why not mention that here) or a way to deduce this (in
which case why not mention that here) ? Why not help implementations interoperate
by clarifying what is done when processing these incomplete polymorphic identifiers?

Section 7:

        A cryptographic key SHOULD be used with only a single algorithm
        unless the use of the same key with different algorithms is
        proven secure.

I would use MUST instead of SHOULD here. The _only_ valid escape is the unless proven
clause. No other unmentioned clauses exist, so MUST is more appropriate.

[Ballot comment]
Abstract:

        This specification creates fully-specified algorithm identifiers
        for registered JSON Object Signing and Encryption (JOSE)
        and CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) polymorphic
        algorithm identifiers and deprecates those polymorphic algorithm
        identifiers, enabling applications to use only fully-specified
        algorithm identifiers.

Please split up this runaway sentence. With the many "and"'s it is too hard
to parse.


        Allow only authenticated content encryption algorithms.

Maybe add "(e.g. an AEAD)" to give people a hint what this means?

[Ballot comment]
What is the update to 8037? This specification notes the changes to 7518 and 9053, but doesn't state a change to 8037. (I suspect it's intended to be Section 5, but that defines behavior for the new algorithms in this document; it does not modify the algorithms specified in 8037.)

Why are the registered names for COSE not aligned with the ones that already exist for JOSE (e.g. ESP256 in COSE vs. ES256 in JOSE)? I assume this has to do with the fact that the currently registered polymorphic entry already has the name ES256, but then why not update the name for JOSE to align?

JOSE does not appear to have corresponding entries for Brainpool curves. Is there a reason to define them for COSE and not JOSE?

Minor nits:

- In the abstract, "Whereas" doesn't really add anything. Just start with "It".
- In Section 1, the exclamation mark seems unnecessary after "For instance, with EdDSA, it is not known which of the curves Ed25519 and/or Ed448 are supported!"
- In Sections 3.x, "This section discusses them." is unnecessary.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the work done in this document. Just some non-blocking COMMENTs

# Abstract

The abstract should mention that some algorithms are deprecated.

# Section 2.1

s/The following fully-specified COSE ECDSA algorithms are defined/The following fully-specified COSE ECDSA algorithms are defined by this document/

Similar comment for section 2.2

[Ballot comment]
Thank you Vijay Gurbani for the GENART review.

** From idnits:
  -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC9053, but the
    abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should.

  -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC8037, but the
    abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should.

  -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC8152, but the
    abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should.

  -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC7518, but the
    abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should.

[Ballot discuss]
Hi Michael & Orie,

Thanks for the effort put into this specification.

I like the clarity provided by the definition of "deprecated" and "prohibited", especially in reference to deployment impacts.

I have two DISCUSS points and some very minor comments.

# Update an obsoleted RFC

It seems weird to me that we are updating an obsoleted RFC (RFC8152). Maybe cleaner to include a complete updated definition of the "Recommended" column.

# The update may not be complete

CURRENT:
  (Note that [RFC9053] did not carry the definitions of
  the "Recommended" registry columns forward, so [RFC8152] remains
  definitive in this regard.)

I'd like to double check this part. RFC8152 says:

  Recommended:  Does the IETF have a consensus recommendation to use
      the algorithm?  The legal values are 'Yes', 'No', and
      'Deprecated'.

However, other values are used in the registry (Filter Only, for example). Where that value is defined as "legal"?

[Ballot comment]
# Expand JOSE/COSE in the title

# Abstract

(1) Delete "etc." as "including" is expected to provide concrete examples.

(2) s/being "fully specified"/being "fully-specified" (to be consistent with the use in the document)

# Introduction

CURRENT:
  Fully Specified
      Those that fully determine the cryptographic operations to be
      performed, including any curve, key derivation function (KDF), and
      hash functions, etc.  Examples are RS256 and ES256K in both JOSE
      and COSE  and ES256 in JOSE.

* Delete "etc."
* Cite authoritative references to COSE/JOSE

# "current"

  [RFC9053] defines the current use of the Elliptic Curve Digital
  Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) by COSE.

and

  [RFC8037] defines the current use of the Edwards-Curve Digital
  Signature Algorithm (EdDSA) by JOSE and [RFC9053] defines its current
  use by COSE.

What do we mean by "current" here? Do we mean "initial"?

# Section 3

(1) Please check the following

CURRENT:
  This section describes the construction of fully-specified encryption
  algorithm identifiers in the context of existing the JOSE and COSE
                                                    ^^^^
  encryption schemes JSON Web Encryption, (JWE) as described in
                                        ^^^^^^^^

(2) What is meant by "essential" in the following (and other similar occurrences)? Do we mean "required"? Mandatory? something else?

CURRENT:
  To perform fully-specified encryption in JOSE, the "alg" value MUST
  specify all essential parameters for key establishment or derive some
  of them from the accompanying "enc" value and the "enc" value MUST
  specify all essential parameters for symmetric encryption.

(3) cite where the outer "alg" is defined

CURRENT:
  To perform fully-specified encryption in COSE, the outer "alg" value

# Section 4.1

CURRENT:
  This section registers the following values in the IANA "JSON Web
  Signature and Encryption Algorithms" registry [IANA.JOSE] established
  by [RFC7515].

Move the text to be under 4.1.1 given that 4.1.2 is about updating a registration.

# Section 4.2

CURRENT:
  This section registers the following values in the IANA "COSE
  Algorithms" registry [IANA.COSE].

Move to text to be under 4.2.1.

# Section 4.4

CURRENT:
    (Identifiers MAY be designated as "Prohibited" due to
      security flaws, for instance.)

Inappropriate use of normative language as this is an example. s/MAY/may.

# Section 6

This is a general comment for this section.

What is the value of having this in the final RFC? We don't document all points discussed by WG, after all.

The final document will reflect the IETF consensus. I would delete at least all mentions with "The working group has discussed".

Cheers,
Med

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for preparing this I-D. I have reviewed this document, and have no transport-related concerns.
I defer to others with security expertise to comment on the security properties of this specification.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms-07. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

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

First, in the JSON Web Signature and Encryption Algorithms registry in the JSON Object Signing and Encryption (JOSE) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/jose/

two new encryption algorithms will be registered as follows:

Algorithm Name: Ed25519
Algorithm Description: EdDSA using Ed25519 curve
Algorithm Usage Locations: alg
JOSE Implementation Requirements: Optional
Change Controller: IETF
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 2.2 ]
Algorithm Analysis Document(s): [RFC8032]

Algorithm Name: Ed448
Algorithm Description: EdDSA using Ed448 curve
Algorithm Usage Locations: alg
JOSE Implementation Requirements: Optional
Change Controller: IETF
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 2.2 ]
Algorithm Analysis Document(s): [RFC8032]

As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we have completed the required Expert Review via a separate request.

Second, also in the JSON Web Signature and Encryption Algorithms registry in the JSON Object Signing and Encryption (JOSE) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/jose/

a single existing registration will be marked as deprecated:

Algorithm Name: EdDSA
Algorithm Description: EdDSA signature algorithms
Algorithm Usage Locations: alg
JOSE Implementation Requirements: Deprecated
Change Controller: IETF
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 2.2 ]
Algorithm Analysis Document(s): [RFC8032]

As this also requests changes to an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate 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."

Third, in the COSE Algorithms registry in the CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/cose/

nine new algorithm registrations will be made as follows:

Name: ESP256
Value: [ TBD-at-registration ] (IANA notes a requested assignment of -9)
Description: ECDSA using P-256 curve and SHA-256
Capabilities: [kty]
Change Controller: IETF
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 2.1 ]
Recommended: Yes

Name: ESP384
Value: [ TBD-at-registration ] (IANA notes a requested assignment of -48)
Description: ECDSA using P-384 curve and SHA-384
Capabilities: [kty]
Change Controller: IETF
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 2.1 ]
Recommended: Yes

Name: ESP512
Value: [ TBD-at-registration ] (IANA notes a requested assignment of -49)
Description: ECDSA using P-521 curve and SHA-512
Capabilities: [kty]
Change Controller: IETF
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 2.1 ]
Recommended: Yes

Name: ESB256
Value: [ TBD-at-registration ] (IANA notes a requested assignment of -261)
Description: ECDSA using BrainpoolP256r1 curve and SHA-256
Capabilities: [kty]
Change Controller: IETF
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 2.1 ]
Recommended: No

Name: ESB320
Value: [ TBD-at-registration ] (IANA notes a requested assignment of -262)
Description: ECDSA using BrainpoolP320r1 curve and SHA-384
Capabilities: [kty]
Change Controller: IETF
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 2.1 ]
Recommended: No

Name: ESB384
Value: [ TBD-at-registration ] (IANA notes a requested assignment of -263)
Description: ECDSA using BrainpoolP384r1 curve and SHA-384
Capabilities: [kty]
Change Controller: IETF
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 2.1 ]
Recommended: No

Name: ESB512
Value: [ TBD-at-registration ] (IANA notes a requested assignment of -264)
Description: ECDSA using BrainpoolP512r1 curve and SHA-512
Capabilities: [kty]
Change Controller: IETF
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 2.1 ]
Recommended: No

Name: Ed25519
Value: [ TBD-at-registration ] (IANA notes a requested assignment of -50)
Description: EdDSA using Ed25519 curve
Capabilities: [kty]
Change Controller: IETF
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 2.1 ]
Recommended: Yes

Name: Ed448
Value: [ TBD-at-registration ] (IANA notes a requested assignment of -51)
Description: EdDSA using Ed448 curve
Capabilities: [kty]
Change Controller: IETF
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 2.1 ]
Recommended: Yes

As this also requests registrations in an Standards Action with Expert Review (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."

Fourth, also in the COSE Algorithms registry in the CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/cose/

four existing algorithms will be marked as Deprecated as follows:

Name: ES256
Value: -7
Description: ECDSA w/ SHA-256
Capabilities: [kty]
Change Controller: IETF
Reference: RFC 9053[ RFC-to-be ]
Recommended: Deprecated

Name: ES384
Value: -35
Description: ECDSA w/ SHA-384
Capabilities: [kty]
Change Controller: IETF
Reference: RFC 9053[ RFC-to-be ]
Recommended: Deprecated

Name: ES512
Value: -36
Description: ECDSA w/ SHA-512
Capabilities: [kty]
Change Controller: IETF
Reference: RFC 9053[ RFC-to-be ]
Recommended: Deprecated

Name: EdDSA
Value: -8
Description: EdDSA
Capabilities: [kty]
Change Controller: IETF
Reference: RFC 9053[ RFC-to-be ]
Recommended: Deprecated

As this also requests changes in an Standards Action with Expert Review (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."

Fifth, also in the JSON Web Signature and Encryption Algorithms registry in the JSON Object Signing and Encryption (JOSE) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/jose/

the reference of [ RFC-to-be; Section 4.3.1 ] will be added to [RFC7518] as references for the registry.

Sixth, also in the COSE Algorithms registry in the CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/cose/

the reference of [ RFC-to-be; Section 4.3.2 ] will be added to the existing [RFC9053] and [RFC9054] as references for the registry.

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 2025-03-07):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: debcooley1@gmail.com, draft-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms@ietf.org, jose-chairs@ietf.org, jose@ietf.org, kodonog@pobox.com, cose@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Fully-Specified Algorithms for JOSE and COSE) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Javascript Object Signing and
Encryption WG (jose) to consider the following document: - 'Fully-Specified
Algorithms for JOSE and COSE'
  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 2025-03-07. 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 specification refers to cryptographic algorithm identifiers that
  fully specify the cryptographic operations to be performed, including
  any curve, key derivation function (KDF), hash functions, etc., as
  being "fully specified".  Whereas, it refers to cryptographic
  algorithm identifiers that require additional information beyond the
  algorithm identifier to determine the cryptographic operations to be
  performed as being "polymorphic".  This specification creates fully-
  specified algorithm identifiers for registered JOSE and COSE
  polymorphic algorithm identifiers, enabling applications to use only
  fully-specified algorithm identifiers.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    rfc9053: CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE): Initial Algorithms (Informational - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) stream)

Document History

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 was robust discussion of the document, including two working group last calls with substantive feedback on the specification from many working group members that was addressed in the draft.  The result is a document with working group consensus.

Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?

There was one reviewer who disagreed with the approach taken to solve the problem.  He stated that protocols could add metadata values as needed to provide additional algorithm parameters, rather than depending upon having fully-specified algorithms.  However, despite that dissent, there was working group support for solving the problem in the manner specified.

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 appeal or extreme discontent.

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 recommends) or elsewhere (where)?

The OpenID FAPI 2.0 Security Profile (https://openid.net/specs/fapi-security-profile-2_0.html) suggests use of the "Ed25519" algorithm, once registered.  This specification is in OpenID Foundation wide review to become final, roughly the equivalent of IETF Last Call.  There are many open finance and open banking ecosystems around the world using FAPI 2.0.  There is also interest in the FIDO Alliance to use "Ed448", once registered.

Additional Reviews

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 registers algorithms for both JOSE and COSE.  The working group last call discussions occurred on both of the mailing lists jose@ietf.org and cose@ietf.org.

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 formal review criteria apply.

If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools 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?

The document has no YANG content.

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

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, this document is needed, well-written, completes all the tasks for which there was working group consensus, and is ready to hand off to our AD.

Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews?

The authors have verified that none of the common Security Area issues at https://wiki.ietf.org/group/sec/typicalSECareaissues directly apply.  In particular, the New Cryptography issue does not apply because the algorithms being registered are all utilizing existing cryptography.  The issues that do apply are those that pertain to any registrations of cryptographic algorithms, and are each discussed in the Security Considerations section.

What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard publication is being requested, and this is correctly recorded in the datatracker.  This is an appropriate status, as it is the same status as the other JOSE specifications that register algorithms.

Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? 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.

Both authors have publicly stated that they are not aware of any IPR that pertains to the specification.

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.  Both of the two authors are willing to be listed as such.

Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There are a possible nits that will be addressed, but I didn't want to hold up the progress on that work.

Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References.

There are a possible reference issue that will be addressed, but I didn't want to hold up the progress on that work.

List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references?

All references are publicly available.

Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP 97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

There are no normative downward references.  There is an informative downward reference to RFC 8152 (which has been obsoleted by RFC 9052 and RFC 9053, which are normatively referenced) because the specification updates the status of an algorithm registration made by RFC 8152.  The registration is not found in the RFCs replacing it.

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 are no such references.

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.

Yes.  The specification correctly declares that it updates RFCs 7518, 8037, 8152, and 9053, if approved.  https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms-06.html#name-json-web-signature-and-encr updates the instructions to the Designated Experts found in RFC 7518.  https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms-06.html#name-deprecated-polymorphic-jose updates the status of an algorithm registered by RFC 8037.  https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms-06.html#name-deprecated-polymorphic-cose updates the status of an algorithm registered by RFC 8152.  https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms-06.html#name-cose-algorithms updates the instructions to the Designated Experts found in RFC 9053.

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).

The registries are all clearly identified and the registrations conform to the corresponding registration templates.  The registrations are the core purpose of the specification and are supported by explanatory text therein.  No new registries are created.

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 created.

Document History

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 was robust discussion of the document, including two working group last calls with substantive feedback on the specification from many working group members that was addressed in the draft.  The result is a document with working group consensus.

Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?

There was one reviewer who disagreed with the approach taken to solve the problem.  He stated that protocols could add metadata values as needed to provide additional algorithm parameters, rather than depending upon having fully-specified algorithms.  However, despite that dissent, there was working group support for solving the problem in the manner specified.

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 appeal or extreme discontent.

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 recommends) or elsewhere (where)?

The OpenID FAPI 2.0 Security Profile (https://openid.net/specs/fapi-security-profile-2_0.html) suggests use of the "Ed25519" algorithm, once registered.  This specification is in OpenID Foundation wide review to become final, roughly the equivalent of IETF Last Call.  There are many open finance and open banking ecosystems around the world using FAPI 2.0.  There is also interest in the FIDO Alliance to use "Ed448", once registered.

Additional Reviews

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 registers algorithms for both JOSE and COSE.  The working group last call discussions occurred on both of the mailing lists jose@ietf.org and cose@ietf.org.

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 formal review criteria apply.

If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools 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?

The document has no YANG content.

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

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, this document is needed, well-written, completes all the tasks for which there was working group consensus, and is ready to hand off to our AD.

Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews?

The authors have verified that none of the common Security Area issues at https://wiki.ietf.org/group/sec/typicalSECareaissues directly apply.  In particular, the New Cryptography issue does not apply because the algorithms being registered are all utilizing existing cryptography.  The issues that do apply are those that pertain to any registrations of cryptographic algorithms, and are each discussed in the Security Considerations section.

What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard publication is being requested, and this is correctly recorded in the datatracker.  This is an appropriate status, as it is the same status as the other JOSE specifications that register algorithms.

Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? 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.

Both authors have publicly stated that they are not aware of any IPR that pertains to the specification.

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.  Both of the two authors are willing to be listed as such.

Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There are a possible nits that will be addressed, but I didn't want to hold up the progress on that work.

Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References.

There are a possible reference issue that will be addressed, but I didn't want to hold up the progress on that work.

List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references?

All references are publicly available.

Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP 97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

There are no normative downward references.  There is an informative downward reference to RFC 8152 (which has been obsoleted by RFC 9052 and RFC 9053, which are normatively referenced) because the specification updates the status of an algorithm registration made by RFC 8152.  The registration is not found in the RFCs replacing it.

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 are no such references.

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.

Yes.  The specification correctly declares that it updates RFCs 7518, 8037, 8152, and 9053, if approved.  https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms-06.html#name-json-web-signature-and-encr updates the instructions to the Designated Experts found in RFC 7518.  https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms-06.html#name-deprecated-polymorphic-jose updates the status of an algorithm registered by RFC 8037.  https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms-06.html#name-deprecated-polymorphic-cose updates the status of an algorithm registered by RFC 8152.  https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms-06.html#name-cose-algorithms updates the instructions to the Designated Experts found in RFC 9053.

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).

The registries are all clearly identified and the registrations conform to the corresponding registration templates.  The registrations are the core purpose of the specification and are supported by explanatory text therein.  No new registries are created.

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 created.

The WGLC received a significant number of comments about issues on the WGLC. The chairs are waiting for an update to address all the issues and a 2nd short WGLC before releasing the document.