Use of Hybrid Public Key Encryption (HPKE) with JSON Web Encryption (JWE)
draft-ietf-jose-hpke-encrypt-22

[Ballot comment]
This second run through the process is to remove HPKE-4-KE and HPKE-6-KE as options
in the Key Encryption mode.  This is the only change!

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-jose-hpke-encrypt-22. We have also reviewed -17 and -20 of this document previously. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

We understand that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete. IANA understands that some of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document are dependent upon the approval of and completion of IANA Actions in another document: [I-D.ietf-hpke-hpke].

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/

The following fourteen entries are to be added to the registry:

Algorithm Name: HPKE-0
Algorithm Description: Integrated Encryption with HPKE using DHKEM(P-256, HKDF-SHA256) KEM, HKDF-SHA256 KDF, and AES-128-GCM AEAD
Algorithm Usage Location(s): “alg”
JOSE Implementation Requirements: Optional
Change Controller: IETF
Specification Document(s): [ RFC-to-be, Section 5.1 ]
Algorithm Analysis Documents(s): [ I-D.ietf-hpke-hpke, Section 6.1 ]

Algorithm Name: HPKE-1
Algorithm Description: Integrated Encryption with HPKE using DHKEM(P-384, HKDF-SHA384) KEM, HKDF-SHA384 KDF, and AES-256-GCM AEAD
Algorithm Usage Location(s): “alg”
JOSE Implementation Requirements: Optional
Change Controller: IETF
Specification Document(s): [ RFC-to-be, Section 5.1 ]
Algorithm Analysis Documents(s): [ I-D.ietf-hpke-hpke, Section 6.1 ]

Algorithm Name: HPKE-2
Algorithm Description: Integrated Encryption with HPKE using DHKEM(P-521, HKDF-SHA512) KEM, HKDF-SHA512 KDF, and AES-256-GCM AEAD
Algorithm Usage Location(s): “alg”
JOSE Implementation Requirements: Optional
Change Controller: IETF
Specification Document(s): [ RFC-to-be, Section 5.1 ]
Algorithm Analysis Documents(s): [ I-D.ietf-hpke-hpke, Section 6.1 ]

Algorithm Name: HPKE-3
Algorithm Description: Integrated Encryption with HPKE using DHKEM(X25519, HKDF-SHA256) KEM, HKDF-SHA256 KDF, and AES-128-GCM AEAD
Algorithm Usage Location(s): “alg”
JOSE Implementation Requirements: Optional
Change Controller: IETF
Specification Document(s): [ RFC-to-be, Section 5.1 ]
Algorithm Analysis Documents(s): [ I-D.ietf-hpke-hpke, Section 6.1 ]

Algorithm Name: HPKE-4
Algorithm Description: Integrated Encryption with HPKE using DHKEM(X25519, HKDF-SHA256) KEM, HKDF-SHA256 KDF, and ChaCha20Poly1305 AEAD
Algorithm Usage Location(s): “alg”
JOSE Implementation Requirements: Optional
Change Controller: IETF
Specification Document(s): [ RFC-to-be, Section 5.1 ]
Algorithm Analysis Documents(s): [ RFC-to-be, Section 6.1 ]

Algorithm Name: HPKE-5
Algorithm Description: Integrated Encryption with HPKE using DHKEM(X448, HKDF-SHA512) KEM, HKDF-SHA512 KDF, and AES-256-GCM AEAD
Algorithm Usage Location(s): “alg”
JOSE Implementation Requirements: Optional
Change Controller: IETF
Specification Document(s): [ RFC-to-be, Section 5.1 ]
Algorithm Analysis Documents(s): [ RFC-to-be, Section 6.1 ]

Algorithm Name: HPKE-6
Algorithm Description: Integrated Encryption with HPKE using DHKEM(X448, HKDF-SHA512) KEM, HKDF-SHA512 KDF, and ChaCha20Poly1305 AEAD
Algorithm Usage Location(s): “alg”
JOSE Implementation Requirements: Optional
Change Controller: IETF
Specification Document(s): [ RFC-to-be, Section 5.1 ]
Algorithm Analysis Documents(s): [ RFC-to-be, Section 6.1 ]

Algorithm Name: HPKE-7
Algorithm Description: Integrated Encryption with HPKE using DHKEM(P-256, HKDF-SHA256) KEM, HKDF-SHA256 KDF, and AES-256-GCM AEAD
Algorithm Usage Location(s): “alg”
JOSE Implementation Requirements: Optional
Change Controller: IETF
Specification Document(s): [ RFC-to-be, Section 5.1 ]
Algorithm Analysis Documents(s): [ RFC-to-be, Section 6.1 ]

Algorithm Name: HPKE-0-KE
Algorithm Description: Key Encryption with HPKE using DHKEM(P-256, HKDF-SHA256) KEM, HKDF-SHA256 KDF, and AES-128-GCM AEAD
Algorithm Usage Location(s): “alg”
JOSE Implementation Requirements: Optional
Change Controller: IETF
Specification Document(s): [ RFC-to-be, Section 6.2 ]
Algorithm Analysis Documents(s): [ I-D.ietf-hpke-hpke, Section 5 ]

Algorithm Name: HPKE-1-KE
Algorithm Description: Key Encryption with HPKE using DHKEM(P-384, HKDF-SHA384) KEM, HKDF-SHA384 KDF, and AES-256-GCM AEAD
Algorithm Usage Location(s): “alg”
JOSE Implementation Requirements: Optional
Change Controller: IETF
Specification Document(s): [ RFC-to-be, Section 6.2 ]
Algorithm Analysis Documents(s): [ I-D.ietf-hpke-hpke, Section 5 ]

Algorithm Name: HPKE-2-KE
Algorithm Description: Key Encryption with HPKE using DHKEM(P-521, HKDF-SHA512) KEM, HKDF-SHA512 KDF, and AES-256-GCM AEAD
Algorithm Usage Location(s): “alg”
JOSE Implementation Requirements: Optional
Change Controller: IETF
Specification Document(s): [ RFC-to-be, Section 6.2 ]
Algorithm Analysis Documents(s): [ I-D.ietf-hpke-hpke, Section 5 ]

Algorithm Name: HPKE-3-KE
Algorithm Description: Key Encryption with HPKE using DHKEM(X25519, HKDF-SHA256) KEM, HKDF-SHA256 KDF, and AES-128-GCM AEAD
Algorithm Usage Location(s): “alg”
JOSE Implementation Requirements: Optional
Change Controller: IETF
Specification Document(s): [ RFC-to-be, Section 6.2 ]
Algorithm Analysis Documents(s): [ I-D.ietf-hpke-hpke, Section 5 ]

Algorithm Name: HPKE-5-KE
Algorithm Description: Key Encryption with HPKE using DHKEM(X448, HKDF-SHA512) KEM, HKDF-SHA512 KDF, and AES-256-GCM AEAD
Algorithm Usage Location(s): “alg”
JOSE Implementation Requirements: Optional
Change Controller: IETF
Specification Document(s): [ RFC-to-be, Section 6.2 ]
Algorithm Analysis Documents(s): [ I-D.ietf-hpke-hpke, Section 5 ]

Algorithm Name: HPKE-7-KE
Algorithm Description: Key Encryption with HPKE using DHKEM(P-256, HKDF-SHA256) KEM, HKDF-SHA256 KDF, and AES-256-GCM AEAD
Algorithm Usage Location(s): “alg”
JOSE Implementation Requirements: Optional
Change Controller: IETF
Specification Document(s): [ RFC-to-be, Section 6.2 ]
Algorithm Analysis Documents(s): [ I-D.ietf-hpke-hpke, Section 5 ]

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. This review must be completed before the document’s IANA state can be changed to “IANA OK.”

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

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

Two new entries are to be added to the registry as follows:

Header Parameter Name: “ek”
Header Parameter Description: A base64url-encoded encapsulated secret, as defined in [ I-D.ietf-hpke-hpke, Section 5 ]
Header Parameter Usage Location(s): JWE
Change Controller: IETF
Specification Document(s): [ RFC-to-be, Section 4.1 ]

Header Parameter Name: “psk_id”
Header Parameter Description: A base64url-encoded key identifier (kid) for the pre-shared key, as defined in [ I-D.ietf-hpke-hpke, Section 5.1.2 ]
Header Parameter Usage Location(s): JWE
Change Controller: IETF
Specification Document(s): [ RFC-to-be, Section 4 ]

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

We understand that this is the only action 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

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## 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?

The document has received reviews on mailing lists and GitHub from a range of individuals. Thorough review was prompted by a first WGLC in June 2025, which did not pass but led to a number of issues being raised and rectified. Broad agreement was reached during the second WGLC in February 2026. There has been suggestion to include PQC algorithms in this draft, but broad agreement to do that in a separate draft.

In July 2026, the document was put through another WGLC and IETF Last Call. This was to remove HPKE-4-KE and HPKE-6-KE as options in the Key Encryption mode, which was raised as during IETF Last Call.
During this WGLC there were several individuals who expressed support for the document,and no one has indicated that they do not support the document. During this final WGLC, there were points made about the approach in the WG to cleaning up algorithms but it was agreed to discuss in future meetings. 

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

Some points involved deep discussion, including the formation of a design team. These were settled and agreed upon without controversy.
As above, there were points made in the final WGLC about the general approach in the WG to cleaning up algorithms but it was agreed to discuss in future meetings and not this document.

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 threats of appeal

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)?

Yes, mailing list discussion highlights multiple interoperable implementations.

## 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.

Yes, the document is closely aligned with a corresponding draft in the COSE WG. The WGLC's were run concurrently to ensure consistent review from both WGs. The HPKE WG also provided review earlier in the development 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.

Not 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]?

N/A

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.

N/A

## 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, the document is clearly written (including a glossary of terms), complete, correct, and ready to be handed to the responsible AD.

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?

This draft focuses on considerations highlighted by the Security Area and includes this discussion in the Security Considerations section. No further reviews are required. 

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?

This document is requesting Proposed Standard publication. This consistent with the other JOSE specifications and is accurate in Datatracker. 

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.

Post sent to mailing list and a follow-up email directly to authors. 4 authors have responded on list confirming no known IPR. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jose/vfQPDAilSa-_n6Oi-EyF3xLDFDg/

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, they have. There are 5 authors at time of writing.

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.)

One nit with a reference as a later version (-22) exists of draft-ietf-cose-hpke-21. These drafts are proceeding through WGLC concurrently, so this can be rectified.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

References are correct.


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 references are freely 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.

None

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?

Normative reference to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-hpke-hpke-02. This draft has been through WGLC but is being held to publish with https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hpke-pq/, which itself is waiting on drafts from CFRG.

Discussion of timelines are on HPKE mailing list  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hpke/5bCbbTB5wkgtB9wjCaufBsdAMpk/

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.

This specification updates RFC 7516. This is highlighted in the title, abstract, introduction, and a standalone section to state the changes. 

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of theANA 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 IANA Considerations section is consistent with the rest of the document and complete. IANA registries have been identified. Contents, procedures and reasonable name are included and agreed upon by WG. 

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.

Not required.

[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/

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2026-08-03):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: debcooley1@gmail.com, draft-ietf-jose-hpke-encrypt@ietf.org, jose-chairs@ietf.org, jose@ietf.org, michael.p1@ncsc.gov.uk
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Use of Hybrid Public Key Encryption (HPKE) with JSON Web Encryption (JWE)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Javascript Object Signing and
Encryption WG (jose) to consider the following document: - 'Use of Hybrid
Public Key Encryption (HPKE) with JSON Web Encryption
  (JWE)'
  as Proposed Standard

This is a second Last Call for draft-ietf-jose-hpke-encrypt. After the recent IESG telechat, with the input of the AD, and based on concerns raised during IETF Last Call, it was decided to remove the HPKE-4-KE and HPKE-6-KE algorithms (JOSE doesn't have a ChaCha20/Poly1305 content encryption algorithm registered). This IETF Last Call is ensure IETF consensus to update these registry options.  Section 6, and Section 11.1 have been updated, removing these two options.

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 2026-08-03. 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 defines how to use Hybrid Public Key Encryption
  (HPKE) with JSON Web Encryption (JWE).  HPKE enables public key
  encryption of arbitrary-sized plaintexts to a recipient's public key,
  and provides security against adaptive chosen ciphertext attacks.
  This specification chooses a specific subset of the HPKE features to
  use with JWE.

  This specification updates RFC 7516 (JWE) to enable use of Integrated
  Encryption as a Key Management Mode.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-jose-hpke-encrypt/



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


The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    rfc8937: Randomness Improvements for Security Protocols (Informational - Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) stream)

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## 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?

The document has received reviews on mailing lists and GitHub from a range of individuals. Thorough review was prompted by a first WGLC in June 2025, which did not pass but led to a number of issues being raised and rectified. Broad agreement was reached during the second WGLC in February 2026. There has been suggestion to include PQC algorithms in this draft, but broad agreement to do that in a separate draft.

The document is currently going through a second run of WGLC and IETF Last Call. This second run through the process is to remove HPKE-4-KE and HPKE-6-KE as options in the Key Encryption mode. This is the only change.

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

Some points involved deep discussion, including the formation of a design team. These were settled and agreed upon without controversy.

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 threats of appeal

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)?

Yes, mailing list discussion highlights multiple interoperable implementations.

## 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.

Yes, the document is closely aligned with a corresponding draft in the COSE WG. The WGLC's were run concurrently to ensure consistent review from both WGs. The HPKE WG also provided review earlier in the development 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.

Not 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]?

N/A

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.

N/A

## 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, the document is clearly written (including a glossary of terms), complete, correct, and ready to be handed to the responsible AD.

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?

This draft focuses on considerations highlighted by the Security Area and includes this discussion in the Security Considerations section. No further reviews are required. 

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?

This document is requesting Proposed Standard publication. This consistent with the other JOSE specifications and is accurate in Datatracker. 

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.

Post sent to mailing list and a follow-up email directly to authors. 4 authors have responded on list confirming no known IPR. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jose/vfQPDAilSa-_n6Oi-EyF3xLDFDg/

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, they have. There are 5 authors at time of writing.

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.)

One nit with a reference as a later version (-22) exists of draft-ietf-cose-hpke-21. These drafts are proceeding through WGLC concurrently, so this can be rectified.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

References are correct.


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 references are freely 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.

None

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?

Normative reference to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-hpke-hpke-02. This draft has been through WGLC but is being held to publish with https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hpke-pq/, which itself is waiting on drafts from CFRG.

Discussion of timelines are on HPKE mailing list  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hpke/5bCbbTB5wkgtB9wjCaufBsdAMpk/

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.

This specification updates RFC 7516. This is highlighted in the title, abstract, introduction, and a standalone section to state the changes. 

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of theANA 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 IANA Considerations section is consistent with the rest of the document and complete. IANA registries have been identified. Contents, procedures and reasonable name are included and agreed upon by WG. 

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.

Not required.

[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/

[Ballot comment]
* In section 7.1, step 10, you generate a random IV.  Should this IV also follow the guidance from 8937?  It appears to be a nonce.  Maybe a few more words beyond than "Generate a random" would be appropriate.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the work done in this document.  Only 1 minor non-blocking COMMENT though

### Section 11.1

A table with all atomic registrations from sections 11.1.* would have been easier to read and made the I-D shorter.

[Ballot comment]
# IESG review of draft-ietf-jose-hpke-encrypt-20

CC @MikeBishop

## Comments

### Section 3, paragraph 14

I appreciate the thorough Terminology section.

### Section 4, paragraph 6

This suggests that if another KMM were defined in the future which
didn't require "enc", it too would need to update 7516. Would it be better to
mandate its exclusion if the KMM doesn't define a use for it? Or is the point
that Integrated Encryption encompasses every case where an algorithm provides
encryption itself?

### Section 6.1, paragraph 2

It's reasonably clear from context what these notations mean, but is
this intended to be following any specified encoding language? It's not ABNF,
TLS, or QUIC notation, but if you're following a particular format, it would be
worth referencing it.

### Section 12, paragraph 5

While you're implementing it by wholesale replacement of the
procedures, the net effect of the update is to add support for Integrated
Encryption to the procedures. I'd suggest using that as the summary, so it's
clear what the impact of the change is.

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. There is no need to let me know
what you did with these suggestions.

### Typos

#### Section 10, paragraph 2
```
-    of public key distribution mechanism is assumed to exist but outside
+    of public key distribution mechanism is assumed to exist but is outside
+                                                                +++
```

### Section 11.1, paragraph 2

This section would be considerably shorter as a table, rather than a
subsection per registration.

Request for IETF Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Peter Yee. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-jose-hpke-encrypt-18. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions that we must complete. We also have questions about each of the actions.

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/

sixteen new registrations will be made as follows:

Algorithm Name: HPKE-0
Algorithm Description: Integrated Encryption with HPKE using DHKEM(P-256, HKDF-SHA256) KEM, HKDF-SHA256 KDF and AES-128-GCM AEAD
Algorithm Usage Location(s): "alg"
JOSE Implementation Requirements: Optional
Change Controller: IETF
Specification Document(s): [ RFC-to-be; Section 5.1 ]
Algorithm Analysis Documents(s): Section 6.1 of [I-D.ietf-hpke-hpke]

Algorithm Name: HPKE-1
Algorithm Description: Integrated Encryption with HPKE using DHKEM(P-384, HKDF-SHA384) KEM, HKDF-SHA384 KDF, and AES-256-GCM AEAD
Algorithm Usage Location(s): "alg"
JOSE Implementation Requirements: Optional
Change Controller: IETF
Specification Document(s): [ RFC-to-be; Section 5.1 ]
Algorithm Analysis Documents(s): Section 6.1 of [I-D.ietf-hpke-hpke]

Algorithm Name: HPKE-2
Algorithm Description: Integrated Encryption with HPKE using DHKEM(P-521, HKDF-SHA512) KEM, HKDF-SHA512 KDF, and AES-256-GCM AEAD
Algorithm Usage Location(s): "alg"
JOSE Implementation Requirements: Optional
Change Controller: IETF
Specification Document(s): [ RFC-to-be; Section 5.1 ]
Algorithm Analysis Documents(s): Section 6.1 of [I-D.ietf-hpke-hpke]

Algorithm Name: HPKE-3
Algorithm Description: Integrated Encryption with HPKE using DHKEM(X25519, HKDF-SHA256) KEM, HKDF-SHA256 KDF, and AES-128-GCM AEAD
Algorithm Usage Location(s): "alg"
JOSE Implementation Requirements: Optional
Change Controller: IETF
Specification Document(s): [ RFC-to-be; Section 5.1 ]
Algorithm Analysis Documents(s): Section 6.1 of [I-D.ietf-hpke-hpke]

Algorithm Name: HPKE-4
Algorithm Description: Integrated Encryption with HPKE using DHKEM(X25519, HKDF-SHA256) KEM, HKDF-SHA256 KDF, and ChaCha20Poly1305 AEAD
Algorithm Usage Location(s): "alg"
JOSE Implementation Requirements: Optional
Change Controller: IETF
Specification Document(s): [ RFC-to-be; Section 5.1 ]
Algorithm Analysis Documents(s): Section 6.1 of [I-D.ietf-hpke-hpke]

Algorithm Name: HPKE-5
Algorithm Description: Integrated Encryption with HPKE using DHKEM(X448, HKDF-SHA512) KEM, HKDF-SHA512 KDF, and AES-256-GCM AEAD
Algorithm Usage Location(s): "alg"
JOSE Implementation Requirements: Optional
Change Controller: IETF
Specification Document(s): [ RFC-to-be; Section 5.1 ]
Algorithm Analysis Documents(s): Section 6.1 of [I-D.ietf-hpke-hpke]

Algorithm Name: HPKE-6
Algorithm Description: Integrated Encryption with HPKE using DHKEM(X448, HKDF-SHA512) KEM, HKDF-SHA512 KDF, and ChaCha20Poly1305 AEAD
Algorithm Usage Location(s): "alg"
JOSE Implementation Requirements: Optional
Change Controller: IETF
Specification Document(s): [ RFC-to-be; Section 5.1 ]
Algorithm Analysis Documents(s): Section 6.1 of [I-D.ietf-hpke-hpke]

Algorithm Name: HPKE-7
Algorithm Description: Integrated Encryption with HPKE using DHKEM(P-256, HKDF-SHA256) KEM, HKDF-SHA256 KDF, and AES-256-GCM AEAD
Algorithm Usage Location(s): "alg"
JOSE Implementation Requirements: Optional
Change Controller: IETF
Specification Document(s): [ RFC-to-be; Section 5.1 ]
Algorithm Analysis Documents(s): Section 6.1 of [I-D.ietf-hpke-hpke]

Algorithm Name: HPKE-0-KE
Algorithm Description: Key Encryption with HPKE using DHKEM(P-256, HKDF-SHA256) KEM, HKDF-SHA256 KDF and AES-128-GCM AEAD
Algorithm Usage Location(s): "alg"
JOSE Implementation Requirements: Optional
Change Controller: IETF
Specification Document(s): [ RFC-to-be; Section 6.2 ]
Algorithm Analysis Documents(s): [I-D.ietf-hpke-hpke; Section 5]

Algorithm Name: HPKE-1-KE
Algorithm Description: Key Encryption with HPKE using DHKEM(P-384, HKDF-SHA384) KEM, HKDF-SHA384 KDF, and AES-256-GCM AEAD
Algorithm Usage Location(s): "alg"
JOSE Implementation Requirements: Optional
Change Controller: IETF
Specification Document(s): [ RFC-to-be; Section 6.2 ]
Algorithm Analysis Documents(s): [I-D.ietf-hpke-hpke; Section 5]

Algorithm Name: HPKE-2-KE
Algorithm Description: Key Encryption with HPKE using DHKEM(P-521, HKDF-SHA512) KEM, HKDF-SHA512 KDF, and AES-256-GCM AEAD
Algorithm Usage Location(s): "alg"
JOSE Implementation Requirements: Optional
Change Controller: IETF
Specification Document(s): [ RFC-to-be; Section 6.2 ]
Algorithm Analysis Documents(s): [I-D.ietf-hpke-hpke; Section 5]

Algorithm Name: HPKE-3-KE
Algorithm Description: Key Encryption with HPKE using DHKEM(X25519, HKDF-SHA256) KEM, HKDF-SHA256 KDF, and AES-128-GCM AEAD
Algorithm Usage Location(s): "alg"
JOSE Implementation Requirements: Optional
Change Controller: IETF
Specification Document(s): [ RFC-to-be; Section 6.2 ]
Algorithm Analysis Documents(s): [I-D.ietf-hpke-hpke; Section 5]

Algorithm Name: HPKE-4-KE
Algorithm Description: Key Encryption with HPKE using DHKEM(X25519, HKDF-SHA256) KEM, HKDF-SHA256 KDF, and ChaCha20Poly1305 AEAD
Algorithm Usage Location(s): "alg"
JOSE Implementation Requirements: Optional
Change Controller: IETF
Specification Document(s): [ RFC-to-be; Section 6.2 ]
Algorithm Analysis Documents(s): [I-D.ietf-hpke-hpke; Section 5]

Algorithm Name: HPKE-5-KE
Algorithm Description: Key Encryption with HPKE using DHKEM(X448, HKDF-SHA512) KEM, HKDF-SHA512 KDF, and AES-256-GCM AEAD
Algorithm Usage Location(s): "alg"
JOSE Implementation Requirements: Optional
Change Controller: IETF
Specification Document(s): [ RFC-to-be; Section 6.2 ]
Algorithm Analysis Documents(s): [I-D.ietf-hpke-hpke; Section 5]

Algorithm Name: HPKE-6-KE
Algorithm Description: Key Encryption with HPKE using DHKEM(X448, HKDF-SHA512) KEM, HKDF-SHA512 KDF, and ChaCha20Poly1305 AEAD
Algorithm Usage Location(s): "alg"
JOSE Implementation Requirements: Optional
Change Controller: IETF
Specification Document(s): [ RFC-to-be; Section 6.2 ]
Algorithm Analysis Documents(s): [I-D.ietf-hpke-hpke; Section 5]

Algorithm Name: HPKE-7-KE
Algorithm Description: Key Encryption with HPKE using DHKEM(P-256, HKDF-SHA256) KEM, HKDF-SHA256 KDF, and AES-256-GCM AEAD
Algorithm Usage Location(s): "alg"
JOSE Implementation Requirements: Optional
Change Controller: IETF
Specification Document(s): [ RFC-to-be; Section 6.2 ]
Algorithm Analysis Documents(s): [I-D.ietf-hpke-hpke; Section 5]

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.

IANA Comment -> draft-ietf-hpke-hpke-03 does not currently list these registrations in its IANA Considerations section. Should they be listed there? IANA updates I-D references after I-D has been approved for publication as an RFC, and after the RFC has been published. If a document does not include instructions for to us update existing references, we may miss updating them (although currently we do run a grep against the draft-string after I-D has been published as an RFC).

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

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

two new registrations will be made as follows:

Header Parameter Name: "ek"
Header Parameter Description: A base64url-encoded encapsulated secret, as defined in [I-D.ietf-hpke-hpke; Section 5]
Header Parameter Usage Location(s): JWE
Change Controller: IETF
Specification Document(s): [ RFC-to-be; Section 4.1 ]

Header Parameter Name: "psk_id"
Header Parameter Description: A base64url-encoded key identifier (kid) for the pre-shared key, as defined in [I-D.ietf-hpke-hpke; Section 5.1.2]
Header Parameter Usage Location(s): JWE
Change Controller: IETF
Specification Document(s): [ RFC-to-be; Section 4 ]

IANA Question -> Our understanding is that the registrations requested in Section 11.2 of the current draft are to be made in the "JSON Web Signature and Encryption Header Parameters" registry (matching the title of the section), not the "JSON Web Key Parameters" registry as the instruction later states. Could this please be revised?

We also need to clarify this with the designated expert, as initially with the review we had listed "JSON Web Key Parameters" instead. This will have to be completed before this document can be marked as IANA OK.

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 2026-05-27):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: debcooley1@gmail.com, draft-ietf-jose-hpke-encrypt@ietf.org, jose-chairs@ietf.org, jose@ietf.org, michael.p1@ncsc.gov.uk
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Use of Hybrid Public Key Encryption (HPKE) with JSON Web Encryption (JWE)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Javascript Object Signing and
Encryption WG (jose) to consider the following document: - 'Use of Hybrid
Public Key Encryption (HPKE) with JSON Web Encryption
  (JWE)'
  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 2026-05-27. 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 defines how to use Hybrid Public Key Encryption
  (HPKE) with JSON Web Encryption (JWE).  HPKE enables public key
  encryption of arbitrary-sized plaintexts to a recipient's public key,
  and provides security against adaptive chosen ciphertext attacks.
  This specification chooses a specific subset of the HPKE features to
  use with JWE.

  This specification updates RFC 7516 (JWE) to enable use of Integrated
  Encryption as a Key Management Mode.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-jose-hpke-encrypt/



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


The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    rfc8937: Randomness Improvements for Security Protocols (Informational - Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) stream)

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## 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?

The document has received reviews on mailing lists and GitHub from a range of individuals. Thorough review was prompted by a first WGLC in June 2025, which did not pass but led to a number of issues being raised and rectified. Broad agreement was reached during the second WGLC in February 2026. There has been suggestion to include PQC algorithms in this draft, but broad agreement to do that in a separate draft. 

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

Some points involved deep discussion, including the formation of a design team. These were settled and agreed upon without controversy.

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 threats of appeal

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)?

Yes, mailing list discussion highlights multiple interoperable implementations.

## 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.

Yes, the document is closely aligned with a corresponding draft in the COSE WG. The WGLC's were run concurrently to ensure consistent review from both WGs. The HPKE WG also provided review earlier in the development 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.

Not 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]?

N/A

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.

N/A

## 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, the document is clearly written (including a glossary of terms), complete, correct, and ready to be handed to the responsible AD.

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?

This draft focuses on considerations highlighted by the Security Area and includes this discussion in the Security Considerations section. No further reviews are required. 

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?

This document is requesting Proposed Standard publication. This consistent with the other JOSE specifications and is accurate in Datatracker. 

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.

Post sent to mailing list and a follow-up email directly to authors. 4 authors have responded on list confirming no known IPR. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jose/vfQPDAilSa-_n6Oi-EyF3xLDFDg/

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, they have. There are 5 authors at time of writing.

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.)

One nit with a reference as a later version (-22) exists of draft-ietf-cose-hpke-21. These drafts are proceeding through WGLC concurrently, so this can be rectified.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

References are correct.


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 references are freely 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.

None

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?

Normative reference to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-hpke-hpke-02. This draft has been through WGLC but is being held to publish with https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hpke-pq/, which itself is waiting on drafts from CFRG.

Discussion of timelines are on HPKE mailing list  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hpke/5bCbbTB5wkgtB9wjCaufBsdAMpk/

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.

This specification updates RFC 7516. This is highlighted in the title, abstract, introduction, and a standalone section to state the changes. 

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of theANA 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 IANA Considerations section is consistent with the rest of the document and complete. IANA registries have been identified. Contents, procedures and reasonable name are included and agreed upon by WG. 

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.

Not required.

[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

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## 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?

The document has received reviews on mailing lists and GitHub from a range of individuals. Thorough review was prompted by a first WGLC in June 2025, which did not pass but led to a number of issues being raised and rectified. Broad agreement was reached during the second WGLC in February 2026. There has been suggestion to include PQC algorithms in this draft, but broad agreement to do that in a separate draft. 

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

Some points involved deep discussion, including the formation of a design team. These were settled and agreed upon without controversy.

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 threats of appeal

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)?

Yes, mailing list discussion highlights multiple interoperable implementations.

## 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.

Yes, the document is closely aligned with a corresponding draft in the COSE WG. The WGLC's were run concurrently to ensure consistent review from both WGs. The HPKE WG also provided review earlier in the development 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.

Not 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]?

N/A

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.

N/A

## 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, the document is clearly written (including a glossary of terms), complete, correct, and ready to be handed to the responsible AD.

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?

This draft focuses on considerations highlighted by the Security Area and includes this discussion in the Security Considerations section. No further reviews are required. 

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?

This document is requesting Proposed Standard publication. This consistent with the other JOSE specifications and is accurate in Datatracker. 

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.

Post sent to mailing list and a follow-up email directly to authors. One response confirming no known IPR https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jose/LhVj_YvFYBAWBDOV4z4RL7qtx80/ has been posted on list, and 3 more have been returned directly.

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, they have. There are 5 authors at time of writing.

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.)

One nit with a reference as a later version (-22) exists of draft-ietf-cose-hpke-21. These drafts are proceeding through WGLC concurrently, so this can be rectified.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

References are correct.


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 references are freely 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.

None

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?

Normative reference to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-hpke-hpke-02. This draft has been through WGLC but is being held to publish with https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hpke-pq/, which itself is waiting on drafts from CFRG.

Discussion of timelines are on HPKE mailing list  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hpke/5bCbbTB5wkgtB9wjCaufBsdAMpk/

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.

This specification updates RFC 7516. This is highlighted in the title, abstract, introduction, and a standalone section to state the changes. 

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of theANA 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 IANA Considerations section is consistent with the rest of the document and complete. IANA registries have been identified. Contents, procedures and reasonable name are included and agreed upon by WG. 

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.

Not required.

[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

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## 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?

The document has received reviews on mailing lists and GitHub from a range of individuals. Thorough review was prompted by a first WGLC in June 2025, which did not pass but led to a number of issues being raised and rectified. Broad agreement was reached during the second WGLC in February 2026. There has been suggestion to include PQC algorithms in this draft, but broad agreement to do that in a separate draft. 

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

Some points involved deep discussion, including the formation of a design team. These were settled and agreed upon without controversy.

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 threats of appeal

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)?

Yes, mailing list discussion highlights multiple interoperable implementations.

## 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.

Yes, the document is closely aligned with a corresponding draft in the COSE WG. The WGLC's were run concurrently to ensure consistent review from both WGs. The HPKE WG also provided review earlier in the development 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.

Not 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]?

N/A

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.

N/A

## 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, the document is clearly written (including a glossary of terms), complete, correct, and ready to be handed to the responsible AD.

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?

This draft focuses on considerations highlighted by the Security Area and includes this discussion in the Security Considerations section. No further reviews are required. 

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?

This document is requesting Proposed Standard publication. This consistent with the other JOSE specifications and is accurate in Datatracker. 

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.

Post sent to mailing list and a follow-up email directly to authors. One response confirming no known IPR https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jose/LhVj_YvFYBAWBDOV4z4RL7qtx80/ has been posted on list, and another has been returned directly.

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, they have. There are 5 authors at time of writing.

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.)

One nit with a reference as a later version (-22) exists of draft-ietf-cose-hpke-21. These drafts are proceeding through WGLC concurrently, so this can be rectified.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

References are correct.


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 references are freely 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.

None

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?

Normative reference to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-hpke-hpke-02. This draft has been through WGLC but is being held to publish with https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hpke-pq/, which itself is waiting on drafts from CFRG.

Discussion of timelines are on HPKE mailing list  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hpke/5bCbbTB5wkgtB9wjCaufBsdAMpk/

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.

This specification updates RFC 7516. This is highlighted in the title, abstract, introduction, and a standalone section to state the changes. 

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of theANA 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 IANA Considerations section is consistent with the rest of the document and complete. IANA registries have been identified. Contents, procedures and reasonable name are included and agreed upon by WG. 

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.

Not required.

[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

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## 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?

The document has received reviews on mailing lists and GitHub from a range of individuals. Thorough review was prompted by a first WGLC in June 2025, which did not pass but led to a number of issues being raised and rectified. Broad agreement was reached during the second WGLC in February 2026. There has been suggestion to include PQC algorithms in this draft, but broad agreement to do that in a separate draft. 

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

Some points involved deep discussion, including the formation of a design team. These were settled and agreed upon without controversy.

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 threats of appeal

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)?

Yes, mailing list discussion highlights multiple interoperable implementations.

## 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.

Yes, the document is closely aligned with a corresponding draft in the COSE WG. The WGLC's were run concurrently to ensure consistent review from both WGs. The HPKE WG also provided review earlier in the development 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.

Not 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]?

N/A

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.

N/A

## 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, the document is clearly written (including a glossary of terms), complete, correct, and ready to be handed to the responsible AD.

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?

This draft focuses on considerations highlighted by the Security Area and includes this discussion in the Security Considerations section. No further reviews are required. 

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?

This document is requesting Proposed Standard publication. This consistent with the other JOSE specifications and is accurate in Datatracker. 

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.

Post sent to mailing list. So far one response confirming no known IPR https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jose/LhVj_YvFYBAWBDOV4z4RL7qtx80/

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, they have. There are 5 authors at time of writing.

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.)

One nit with a reference as a later version (-22) exists of draft-ietf-cose-hpke-21. These drafts are proceeding through WGLC concurrently, so this can be rectified.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

References are correct.


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 references are freely 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.

None

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?

Normative reference to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-hpke-hpke-02. This draft has been through WGLC but is being held to publish with https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hpke-pq/, which itself is waiting on drafts from CFRG.

Discussion of timelines are on HPKE mailing list  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hpke/5bCbbTB5wkgtB9wjCaufBsdAMpk/

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.

This specification updates RFC 7516. This is highlighted in the title, abstract, introduction, and a standalone section to state the changes. 

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of theANA 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 IANA Considerations section is consistent with the rest of the document and complete. IANA registries have been identified. Contents, procedures and reasonable name are included and agreed upon by WG. 

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.

Not required.

[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/

The WGLC for this document was initiated on the mailing list on 04 June 2025. However, the chairs neglected to indicate the updated state in datatracker. This is a change of state to correct that oversight. The document is still in WGLC and will be discussed on the agenda for the jose working group @ IETF 123.