Skip to main content

Traces of EDHOC
draft-ietf-lake-traces-09

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2024-03-20
(System)
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-ietf-lake-traces and RFC 9529, changed IESG state to RFC …
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-ietf-lake-traces and RFC 9529, changed IESG state to RFC Published)
2024-03-14
09 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2024-03-13
09 Mališa Vučinić Changed document external resources from: None to:

github_repo https://github.com/lake-wg/edhoc
2024-03-01
09 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48
2024-01-29
09 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from IESG
2024-01-27
09 Göran Selander New version available: draft-ietf-lake-traces-09.txt
2024-01-27
09 Göran Selander New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Göran Selander)
2024-01-27
09 Göran Selander Uploaded new revision
2024-01-26
08 Gunter Van de Velde Request closed, assignment withdrawn: Carlos Martínez Last Call OPSDIR review
2024-01-26
08 Gunter Van de Velde Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events': Cleaning up stale OPSDIR queue
2024-01-10
08 (System) RFC Editor state changed to IESG from RFC-EDITOR
2023-12-12
08 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2023-11-20
08 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from IESG
2023-10-27
08 (System) RFC Editor state changed to IESG from EDIT
2023-10-25
08 Mališa Vučinić Added to session: IETF-118: lake  Mon-1630
2023-09-22
08 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IANA Actions from In Progress
2023-09-22
08 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2023-09-22
08 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2023-09-22
08 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2023-09-22
08 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2023-09-22
08 (System) Removed all action holders (IESG state changed)
2023-09-22
08 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2023-09-22
08 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2023-09-22
08 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2023-09-22
08 Cindy Morgan Ballot approval text was generated
2023-09-22
08 Paul Wouters ready to roll :)
2023-09-22
08 Paul Wouters IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup
2023-09-22
08 (System) Changed action holders to Paul Wouters (IESG state changed)
2023-09-22
08 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed
2023-09-22
08 Göran Selander New version available: draft-ietf-lake-traces-08.txt
2023-09-22
08 (System) New version approved
2023-09-22
08 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Goeran Selander , John Mattsson , Malisa Vucinic , Marco Tiloca , Marek Serafin
2023-09-22
08 Göran Selander Uploaded new revision
2023-09-21
07 Paul Wouters just a few minor changes in response to the IESG review
2023-09-21
07 (System) Changed action holders to John Preuß Mattsson, Mališa Vučinić, Göran Selander, Marco Tiloca, Marek Serafin (IESG state changed)
2023-09-21
07 Paul Wouters IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup
2023-09-21
07 Cindy Morgan Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2023-09-21
07 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation
2023-09-21
07 Andrew Alston [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Andrew Alston
2023-09-20
07 Murray Kucherawy
[Ballot comment]
I don't think you want BCP 14 here.  The solitary "MUST" you do have is actually citing another document; this one is Informational …
[Ballot comment]
I don't think you want BCP 14 here.  The solitary "MUST" you do have is actually citing another document; this one is Informational and not actually stating any of its own requirements.  I'd suggest removing the BCP 14 references and the matching boilerplate, but quote the "MUST" or even just say that document "requires" (lowercase) something specific.
2023-09-20
07 Murray Kucherawy [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy
2023-09-20
07 Erik Kline [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline
2023-09-20
07 John Scudder [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for John Scudder
2023-09-20
07 Zaheduzzaman Sarker [Ballot comment]
Haven't found TSV related issues or have not TSV related comments.
2023-09-20
07 Zaheduzzaman Sarker [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker
2023-09-20
07 Francesca Palombini [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Francesca Palombini
2023-09-19
07 Warren Kumari [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari
2023-09-19
07 Jim Guichard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jim Guichard
2023-09-18
07 Robert Wilton [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Wilton
2023-09-16
07 Ivaylo Petrov Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Ivaylo Petrov. Sent review to list.
2023-09-15
07 Roman Danyliw
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for writing this document.  I am confident that it will help future implementers.

I did not personally verify the encodings.

** …
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for writing this document.  I am confident that it will help future implementers.

I did not personally verify the encodings.

** Section 1.1
  The traces in this draft are valid for version -22 of
  [I-D.ietf-lake-edhoc].  The traces has been verified by two
  independent implementations.

I appreciate the precision of this statement.  In the long term, shouldn’t these traces be valid for whatever RFC this EDHOC becomes.  Recommend providing instructions to the RFC Editor to replace [I-D.ietf-lake-edhoc] with the yet-to-be-assigned RFC number.
2023-09-15
07 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw
2023-09-15
07 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2023-09-14
07 Cindy Morgan Placed on agenda for telechat - 2023-09-21
2023-09-14
07 Paul Wouters Ballot has been issued
2023-09-14
07 Paul Wouters [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Paul Wouters
2023-09-14
07 Paul Wouters Created "Approve" ballot
2023-09-14
07 Paul Wouters IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup
2023-09-14
07 Paul Wouters Ballot writeup was changed
2023-09-13
07 (System) Changed action holders to Paul Wouters (IESG state changed)
2023-09-13
07 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed
2023-09-13
07 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2023-09-13
07 Göran Selander New version available: draft-ietf-lake-traces-07.txt
2023-09-13
07 (System) New version approved
2023-09-13
07 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Goeran Selander , John Mattsson , Malisa Vucinic , Marco Tiloca , Marek Serafin
2023-09-13
07 Göran Selander Uploaded new revision
2023-09-13
06 Paul Wouters waiting on invalid test vectors to be added to the document
2023-09-13
06 (System) Changed action holders to Paul Wouters, Göran Selander, John Preuß Mattsson, Marek Serafin, Marco Tiloca, Mališa Vučinić (IESG state changed)
2023-09-13
06 Paul Wouters IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2023-09-12
06 Donald Eastlake Request for Last Call review by INTDIR Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Donald Eastlake.
2023-09-11
06 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2023-09-06
06 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2023-09-06
06 David Dong
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-lake-traces-06, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-lake-traces-06, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

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
2023-09-03
06 Joel Halpern
Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Joel Halpern. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier …
Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Joel Halpern. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.
2023-09-03
06 Joel Halpern Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Joel Halpern.
2023-08-31
06 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern
2023-08-31
06 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Ivaylo Petrov
2023-08-31
06 Juan-Carlos Zúñiga Request for Last Call review by INTDIR is assigned to Donald Eastlake
2023-08-31
06 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Martínez
2023-08-30
06 Barry Leiba Closed request for Last Call review by ARTART with state 'Team Will not Review Document'
2023-08-30
06 Martin Thomson Assignment of request for Last Call review by ARTART to Martin Thomson was rejected
2023-08-30
06 Barry Leiba Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Martin Thomson
2023-08-28
06 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2023-08-28
06 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-09-11):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-lake-traces@ietf.org, lake-chairs@ietf.org, lake@ietf.org, paul.wouters@aiven.io, stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-09-11):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-lake-traces@ietf.org, lake-chairs@ietf.org, lake@ietf.org, paul.wouters@aiven.io, stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Traces of EDHOC) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Lightweight Authenticated Key
Exchange WG (lake) to consider the following document: - 'Traces of EDHOC'
  as Informational RFC

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 2023-09-11. 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 document contains some example traces of Ephemeral Diffie-
  Hellman Over COSE (EDHOC).




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lake-traces/



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




2023-08-28
06 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2023-08-28
06 Paul Wouters Last call was requested
2023-08-28
06 Paul Wouters Ballot approval text was generated
2023-08-28
06 Paul Wouters Ballot writeup was generated
2023-08-28
06 Paul Wouters IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2023-08-28
06 Paul Wouters Last call announcement was generated
2023-08-26
06 (System) Changed action holders to Paul Wouters (IESG state changed)
2023-08-26
06 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed
2023-08-26
06 John Preuß Mattsson New version available: draft-ietf-lake-traces-06.txt
2023-08-26
06 John Preuß Mattsson New version accepted (logged-in submitter: John Preuß Mattsson)
2023-08-26
06 John Preuß Mattsson Uploaded new revision
2023-07-21
05 (System) Changed action holders to Paul Wouters, Göran Selander, John Preuß Mattsson, Marek Serafin, Marco Tiloca (IESG state changed)
2023-07-21
05 Paul Wouters IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from Publication Requested
2023-06-07
05 Stephen Farrell
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

## 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?

Consensus is fine. Only a few contributors to this as it's test vectors.

- Traces in the draft have been produced based on the output of Californium implementation of EDHOC [1] by Marco Tiloca.
- Trace #2 (static DH - static DH) has been verified using edhoc-rs implementation by Mališa Vučinić [2]
- Trace #1 (signature-signature) has been verified using the proprietary implementation by Marek Serafin. We have off-list mail confirmation.

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lake/kOFGzFCDrpzrTVg5bB_rVOE_xMI/
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lake/-YhpDW_GstlRIlst8bzS-lP0A5s/

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

No 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

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)?

This is implementer output.

## 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.

Not needed.

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 needed.

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?

Yep

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?

None.

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?

Info. It's test vectors.

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.

All good.

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.

All good.

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.)

All good.

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

All good.

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 good.

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.

All good.

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?

All good.

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.

All good.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

All good.

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.

All good.

[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://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/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/

2023-04-28
05 Stephen Farrell Notification list changed to stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie because the document shepherd was set
2023-04-28
05 Stephen Farrell Document shepherd changed to Stephen Farrell
2023-04-28
05 Stephen Farrell
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

## 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?

Consensus is fine. Only a few contributors to this as it's test vectors.

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

No 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

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)?

This is implementer output.

## 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.

Not needed.

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 needed.

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?

Yep

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?

None.

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?

Info. It's test vectors.

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.

In-progress.

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.

All good.

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.)

All good.

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

All good.

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 good.

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.

All good.

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?

All good.

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.

All good.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

All good.

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.

All good.

[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://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/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/

2023-04-28
05 Stephen Farrell Responsible AD changed to Paul Wouters
2023-04-28
05 Stephen Farrell IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2023-04-28
05 Stephen Farrell IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2023-04-28
05 Stephen Farrell Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested
2023-04-28
05 Stephen Farrell
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

## 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?

Consensus is fine. Only a few contributors to this as it's test vectors.

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

No 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

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)?

This is implementer output.

## 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.

Not needed.

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 needed.

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?

Yep

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?

None.

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?

Info. It's test vectors.

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.

In-progress.

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.

All good.

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.)

All good.

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

All good.

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 good.

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.

All good.

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?

All good.

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.

All good.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

All good.

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.

All good.

[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://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/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/

2023-04-28
05 Stephen Farrell IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2023-04-28
05 Stephen Farrell Intended Status changed to Informational from None
2023-04-28
05 Göran Selander New version available: draft-ietf-lake-traces-05.txt
2023-04-28
05 (System) New version approved
2023-04-28
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Goeran Selander , John Mattsson , Marco Tiloca , Marek Serafin
2023-04-28
05 Göran Selander Uploaded new revision
2023-04-04
04 Mališa Vučinić IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2023-03-15
04 Mališa Vučinić Added to session: IETF-116: lake  Thu-0030
2023-03-10
04 Göran Selander New version available: draft-ietf-lake-traces-04.txt
2023-03-10
04 Göran Selander New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Göran Selander)
2023-03-10
04 Göran Selander Uploaded new revision
2022-10-26
03 Mališa Vučinić Added to session: IETF-115: lake  Tue-1630
2022-10-24
03 Göran Selander New version available: draft-ietf-lake-traces-03.txt
2022-10-24
03 Göran Selander New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Göran Selander)
2022-10-24
03 Göran Selander Uploaded new revision
2022-09-29
02 Mališa Vučinić Added to session: interim-2022-lake-02
2022-07-25
02 Göran Selander New version available: draft-ietf-lake-traces-02.txt
2022-07-25
02 Göran Selander New version approved
2022-07-25
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Goeran Selander , John Mattsson , Marco Tiloca , Marek Serafin
2022-07-25
02 Göran Selander Uploaded new revision
2022-07-11
01 Mališa Vučinić Added to session: IETF-114: lake  Wed-1330
2022-07-10
01 Göran Selander New version available: draft-ietf-lake-traces-01.txt
2022-07-10
01 (System) New version approved
2022-07-10
01 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Goeran Selander , John Mattsson , lake-chairs@ietf.org
2022-07-10
01 Göran Selander Uploaded new revision
2022-05-29
00 (System) Document has expired
2022-03-17
00 Mališa Vučinić Added to session: IETF-113: lake  Mon-1430
2022-01-21
00 Mališa Vučinić Added to session: interim-2022-lake-01
2021-12-13
00 Mališa Vučinić Added to session: interim-2021-lake-05
2021-11-25
00 Stephen Farrell This document now replaces draft-selander-lake-traces instead of None
2021-11-25
00 Göran Selander New version available: draft-ietf-lake-traces-00.txt
2021-11-25
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2021-11-25
00 Göran Selander Set submitter to "Göran Selander", replaces to draft-selander-lake-traces and sent approval email to group chairs: lake-chairs@ietf.org
2021-11-25
00 Göran Selander Uploaded new revision