Skip to main content

Encryption Key Derivation in the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) using HKDF with SHA-256
draft-ietf-lamps-cms-cek-hkdf-sha256-05

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2025-01-10
(System)
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-ietf-lamps-cms-cek-hkdf-sha256 and RFC 9709, changed IESG state to RFC …
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-ietf-lamps-cms-cek-hkdf-sha256 and RFC 9709, changed IESG state to RFC Published)
2025-01-10
05 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2025-01-06
05 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48
2024-10-18
05 Carlos Pignataro Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'Team Will not Review Document'
2024-10-18
05 Carlos Pignataro Assignment of request for Last Call review by OPSDIR to Sarah Banks was marked no-response
2024-10-02
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2024-10-02
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2024-10-02
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2024-09-27
05 Tero Kivinen Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events'
2024-09-27
05 Tero Kivinen Assignment of request for Last Call review by SECDIR to Stefan Santesson was marked no-response
2024-09-23
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2024-09-20
05 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2024-09-20
05 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2024-09-20
05 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2024-09-20
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2024-09-20
05 (System) Removed all action holders (IESG state changed)
2024-09-20
05 Jenny Bui IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2024-09-20
05 Jenny Bui IESG has approved the document
2024-09-20
05 Jenny Bui Closed "Approve" ballot
2024-09-20
05 Jenny Bui Ballot approval text was generated
2024-09-20
05 Deb Cooley IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup
2024-09-19
05 Russ Housley New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-cms-cek-hkdf-sha256-05.txt
2024-09-19
05 Russ Housley New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Russ Housley)
2024-09-19
05 Russ Housley Uploaded new revision
2024-09-19
04 Jenny Bui IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation
2024-09-19
04 John Scudder [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for John Scudder
2024-09-19
04 Jim Guichard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jim Guichard
2024-09-19
04 Francesca Palombini [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Francesca Palombini
2024-09-18
04 Murray Kucherawy [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy
2024-09-18
04 Paul Wouters
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this update and the (reasonably prompt) response to an attack.

My only comment is for:

  salt = "The Cryptographic Message …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this update and the (reasonably prompt) response to an attack.

My only comment is for:

  salt = "The Cryptographic Message Syntax"

This isn't what we traditionally call a "salt". Salts usually are random. This seems more like a context or binding string? eg to bind the operation to CMS.
2024-09-18
04 Paul Wouters [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Paul Wouters
2024-09-18
04 Zaheduzzaman Sarker [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker
2024-09-16
04 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2024-09-16
04 Mahesh Jethanandani [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mahesh Jethanandani
2024-09-16
04 Orie Steele [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Orie Steele
2024-09-16
04 Roman Danyliw [Ballot comment]
Thank you to Stewart Bryant for the GENART review.
2024-09-16
04 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw
2024-09-16
04 Gunter Van de Velde
[Ballot comment]
# Gunter Van de Velde, RTG AD, comments for draft-ietf-lamps-cms-cek-hkdf-sha256-04

In the references FIPS 180-4 is observed. Is there a reason why there …
[Ballot comment]
# Gunter Van de Velde, RTG AD, comments for draft-ietf-lamps-cms-cek-hkdf-sha256-04

In the references FIPS 180-4 is observed. Is there a reason why there is no permalink provided to the respective resource? Through a search i found the reference rather easy, however do the authors of this document expect users to search by themselves for the referenced resource? https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/fips/180-4/upd1/final
2024-09-16
04 Gunter Van de Velde [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gunter Van de Velde
2024-09-16
04 Éric Vyncke
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the document, while I am not that deep in cryptography, I have some comments:

# Abstract

The I-D title contains …
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the document, while I am not that deep in cryptography, I have some comments:

# Abstract

The I-D title contains `using HKDF with SHA-256` should the abstract also mention this and expand HKDF ?

# Section 2

Which is the unit of "len()", I guess bits but let's be clear.

# Only SHA-256 ?

I was wondering why there is no provision for other algorithms than SHA-256 until I read the "security considerations" section with `One KDF algorithm was selected to avoid the need for negotiation.` This previous sentence is valid and smart but should actually be in the introduction rather than in the security.
2024-09-16
04 Éric Vyncke [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke
2024-09-15
04 Erik Kline [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline
2024-09-11
04 Deb Cooley Placed on agenda for telechat - 2024-09-19
2024-09-11
04 Deb Cooley Ballot has been issued
2024-09-11
04 Deb Cooley [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Deb Cooley
2024-09-11
04 Deb Cooley Created "Approve" ballot
2024-09-11
04 Deb Cooley IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2024-09-10
04 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2024-09-10
04 Russ Housley New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-cms-cek-hkdf-sha256-04.txt
2024-09-10
04 Russ Housley New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Russ Housley)
2024-09-10
04 Russ Housley Uploaded new revision
2024-09-10
03 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2024-09-07
03 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Stefan Santesson
2024-09-04
03 Stewart Bryant Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Stewart Bryant. Sent review to list.
2024-09-04
03 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2024-09-04
03 David Dong
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-lamps-cms-cek-hkdf-sha256-03. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

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

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-lamps-cms-cek-hkdf-sha256-03. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

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

First, in the SMI Security for S/MIME Module Identifier (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.0) registry in the Structure of Management Information (SMI) Numbers (MIB Module Registrations) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/

A single new registration will be made as follows:

Decimal: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: id-mod-CMS-CEK-HKDF-SHA256-202
References: [ RFC-to-be ]

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

Second, in the SMI Security for S/MIME Algorithms (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.3) registry also in the Structure of Management Information (SMI) Numbers (MIB Module Registrations) registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/

The early OID registration of OID id-alg-cek-hkdf-sha256 (31) will be made permanent and its reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

We understand that these two actions are the only ones 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
2024-09-03
03 David Dong IANA Experts State changed to Expert Reviews OK from Reviews assigned
2024-08-29
03 Carlos Pignataro Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Sarah Banks
2024-08-29
03 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Stewart Bryant
2024-08-27
03 David Dong IANA Experts State changed to Reviews assigned
2024-08-27
03 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2024-08-27
03 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-09-10):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: debcooley1@gmail.com, draft-ietf-lamps-cms-cek-hkdf-sha256@ietf.org, lamps-chairs@ietf.org, spasm@ietf.org, tim.hollebeek@digicert.com …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-09-10):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: debcooley1@gmail.com, draft-ietf-lamps-cms-cek-hkdf-sha256@ietf.org, lamps-chairs@ietf.org, spasm@ietf.org, tim.hollebeek@digicert.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Encryption Key Derivation in the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) using HKDF with SHA-256) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Limited Additional Mechanisms for
PKIX and SMIME WG (lamps) to consider the following document: - 'Encryption
Key Derivation in the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
  using HKDF with SHA-256'
  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 2024-09-10. 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 specifies the derivation of the content-encryption key
  or the content-authenticated-encryption key in the Cryptographic
  Message Syntax (CMS).  The use of this mechanism provides protection
  against where the attacker manipulates the content-encryption
  algorithm identifier or the content-authenticated-encryption
  algorithm identifier.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-cms-cek-hkdf-sha256/



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




2024-08-27
03 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2024-08-27
03 Deb Cooley Last call was requested
2024-08-27
03 Deb Cooley Last call announcement was generated
2024-08-27
03 Deb Cooley Ballot approval text was generated
2024-08-27
03 Deb Cooley Ballot writeup was generated
2024-08-27
03 Deb Cooley IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested
2024-07-23
03 Russ Housley New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-cms-cek-hkdf-sha256-03.txt
2024-07-23
03 Russ Housley New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Russ Housley)
2024-07-23
03 Russ Housley Uploaded new revision
2024-07-22
02 Tim Hollebeek
# 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 …
# 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?

Broad agreement.

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

No.

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 document is necessary to fix a serious security vulnerability in the S/MIME
protocol.  Everyone who implements S/MIME will have to implement it.  It also
affects COSE/JOSE implementations, which will be addressed by those WGs.

## 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.

The COSE/JOSE working groups are already aware and have reviewed, and plan to
standardize the same fix.

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.

No such formal 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][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]?

No YANG module.

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.

This document contains ASN.1.  The ASN.1 was checked by an ASN.1 expert, and the
module in the appendix was compiled with an ASN.1 compiler with no errors.

## 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, this is a well-written, necessary update to CMS.

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?

The SECDIR checklist is the relevant one and was reviewed.

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?

Proposed Standard.  This is correct because it will be incorporated into an
update for the CMS message format and the S/MIME protocol.

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.

Yes, the author stated he has no knowledge of relevant IPR.

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.

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.)

There's a long line and a typo ('FRC5911') that should be fixed; this can be
handled in parallel with AD review updates.

RFC 8659 is in the downref registry (can idnits be upgraded to check this?)

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

References look 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 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.

No.

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?

No.

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.

It will not.

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]).

The IANA considerations correctly describe the algorithm identifier that was
already allocated through the early assignment process, and the additional
module identifier that needs to be allocated to identify the ASN.1 module
in the first appendix.  All of the specifications look reasonable.

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.

No such registries.

[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/

2024-07-22
02 Tim Hollebeek IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2024-07-22
02 Tim Hollebeek IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2024-07-22
02 (System) Changed action holders to Deb Cooley (IESG state changed)
2024-07-22
02 Tim Hollebeek Responsible AD changed to Deb Cooley
2024-07-22
02 Tim Hollebeek Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested
2024-07-22
02 Tim Hollebeek
# 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 …
# 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?

Broad agreement.

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

No.

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 document is necessary to fix a serious security vulnerability in the S/MIME
protocol.  Everyone who implements S/MIME will have to implement it.  It also
affects COSE/JOSE implementations, which will be addressed by those WGs.

## 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.

The COSE/JOSE working groups are already aware and have reviewed, and plan to
standardize the same fix.

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.

No such formal 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][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]?

No YANG module.

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.

This document contains ASN.1.  The ASN.1 was checked by an ASN.1 expert, and the
module in the appendix was compiled with an ASN.1 compiler with no errors.

## 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, this is a well-written, necessary update to CMS.

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?

The SECDIR checklist is the relevant one and was reviewed.

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?

Proposed Standard.  This is correct because it will be incorporated into an
update for the CMS message format and the S/MIME protocol.

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.

Yes, the author stated he has no knowledge of relevant IPR.

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.

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.)

There's a long line and a typo ('FRC5911') that should be fixed; this can be
handled in parallel with AD review updates.

RFC 8659 is in the downref registry (can idnits be upgraded to check this?)

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

References look 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 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.

No.

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?

No.

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.

It will not.

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]).

The IANA considerations correctly describe the algorithm identifier that was
already allocated through the early assignment process, and the additional
module identifier that needs to be allocated to identify the ASN.1 module
in the first appendix.  All of the specifications look reasonable.

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.

No such registries.

[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/

2024-07-22
02 Tim Hollebeek Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2024-07-22
02 Tim Hollebeek Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2024-07-22
02 Tim Hollebeek IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document
2024-07-22
02 Tim Hollebeek Notification list changed to tim.hollebeek@digicert.com because the document shepherd was set
2024-07-22
02 Tim Hollebeek Document shepherd changed to Tim Hollebeek
2024-07-08
02 Russ Housley New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-cms-cek-hkdf-sha256-02.txt
2024-07-08
02 Russ Housley New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Russ Housley)
2024-07-08
02 Russ Housley Uploaded new revision
2024-03-18
01 Russ Housley New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-cms-cek-hkdf-sha256-01.txt
2024-03-18
01 Russ Housley New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Russ Housley)
2024-03-18
01 Russ Housley Uploaded new revision
2024-01-29
00 Russ Housley This document now replaces draft-housley-lamps-cms-cek-hkdf-sha256 instead of None
2024-01-29
00 Russ Housley New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-cms-cek-hkdf-sha256-00.txt
2024-01-29
00 Russ Housley WG -00 approved
2024-01-29
00 Russ Housley Set submitter to "Russ Housley ", replaces to draft-housley-lamps-cms-cek-hkdf-sha256 and sent approval email to group chairs: lamps-chairs@ietf.org
2024-01-29
00 Russ Housley Uploaded new revision