# Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-lake-edhoc
Template version: 4 July 2022
## Document History
1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
There is a strong consensus in the working group on publishing this document.
During the WGLC, there were 7 reviews received, both from the formal analysis
academic community and the implementers. After resolving these comments, there
were no objections on pushing the document forward to the IESG.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
One point that received particular attention was the decision on the mandatory-
to-implement cipher suite. Section 7 details the consensus text.
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.)
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 recommends) or elsewhere
To this date, there are at least 7 independent implementations of the protocol
at its different versions. These were tested during 6 interoperability testing
events organized either online or in collocation with the IETF Hackathon. The
page gathering relevant information around the protocol is available at:
## 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.
EDHOC is a key exchange protocol over COSE. Participants of the COSE working
group were involved in the standardization of this document. Further, during
the working group stage of the document, it was decided to invite the academic
community using formal methods to study the contents of the specification. From
November 2021 to May 2022, the working group 'froze' the document to give enough
time to the academic teams to review. Overall, four independent teams have
studied the protocol's security properties and the work on a formally verified
implementation is ongoing. No major security vulnerabilities were discovered and
the process has resulted in improvements to the protocol.
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.
7. 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?
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.
CDDL in the previous version of the document has been manually reviewed by
Carsten Bormann, a co-author of RFC 8610 (CDDL). The shepherd has asked a
re-review on the latest version.
## 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?
10. 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
The document has undergone a thorough review by the academic community working
on formal methods.
11. 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?
The draft should be published as "Proposed Standard". The draft is a major
dependency for many documents in other IoT-related working groups, such as ACE
and CoRE. The Datatracker intended RFC status is set to "Proposed Standard".
12. 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.
Yes, the authors have confirmed publicly that they are not aware of any IPR
that relates to this draft.
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, each author has confirmed their willingness to be listed as author.
14. 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.)
I-D nits check generated warnings for lines that appear to be too long, but
this was caused by non-ascii characters. Lines with non-ascii characters also
generated a warning. There is also an outdated reference to
draft-ietf-rats-eat-17, which generated a warning.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.
There was a discussion in the group whether I-D.ietf-cose-cbor-encoded-cert
should be included as a normative reference.
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
There are no such normative references.
17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
RFC 7624, RFC 8376, RFC 9053 are not listed in the DOWNREF registry.
RFC 7624 and RFC 8376 can be informative and following shepherd's review an
issue was raised to update the document changing these references to informative.
RFC 9053, which defines a set of algorithms, should likely be included in the
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?
The only normative reference which has the I-D status (draft-ietf-cose-x509) is
submitted to IESG for publication. All other normative references have been
published as RFCs.
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.
20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).
Following shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, the description
of one registry has been updated. I confirm all aspects mentioned above.
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.
EDHOC Exporter Label Registry
EDHOC Cipher Suites Registry
EDHOC Error Codes Registry
Yes, there is a dedicated section (Section 9.11) with clear instructions to the