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.