Skip to main content

Use of the SLH-DSA Signature Algorithm in the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
draft-ietf-lamps-cms-sphincs-plus-19

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2025-01-22
19 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2025-01-20
19 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors
2025-01-17
19 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors
2025-01-16
19 Tero Kivinen Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events'
2025-01-16
19 Tero Kivinen Assignment of request for Last Call review by SECDIR to Daniel Migault was marked no-response
2025-01-15
19 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2025-01-15
19 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2025-01-15
19 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2025-01-14
19 Barry Leiba Closed request for Last Call review by ARTART with state 'Overtaken by Events': Document has finished IESG processing
2025-01-14
19 Barry Leiba Assignment of request for Last Call review by ARTART to Matthew Miller was marked no-response
2025-01-13
19 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2025-01-13
19 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2025-01-13
19 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2025-01-13
19 Cindy Morgan Ballot approval text was generated
2025-01-13
19 Cindy Morgan Ballot writeup was changed
2025-01-13
19 (System) Removed all action holders (IESG state changed)
2025-01-13
19 Deb Cooley IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2025-01-13
19 Russ Housley New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-cms-sphincs-plus-19.txt
2025-01-13
19 Russ Housley New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Russ Housley)
2025-01-13
19 Russ Housley Uploaded new revision
2025-01-13
18 Paul Wouters [Ballot comment]
Thanks for addressing my concerns. I have updated by ballot to Yes
2025-01-13
18 Paul Wouters [Ballot Position Update] Position for Paul Wouters has been changed to Yes from Discuss
2025-01-10
18 (System) Changed action holders to Deb Cooley (IESG state changed)
2025-01-10
18 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed
2025-01-10
18 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2025-01-10
18 Russ Housley New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-cms-sphincs-plus-18.txt
2025-01-10
18 Russ Housley New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Russ Housley)
2025-01-10
18 Russ Housley Uploaded new revision
2025-01-09
17 (System) Changed action holders to Russ Housley, Scott Fluhrer, Panos Kampanakis, Bas Westerbaan (IESG state changed)
2025-01-09
17 Jenny Bui IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2025-01-08
17 Murray Kucherawy [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy
2025-01-08
17 John Scudder [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for John Scudder
2025-01-08
17 Zaheduzzaman Sarker [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker
2025-01-07
17 Roman Danyliw
[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Vijay Gurbani for the GENART review.

** Section 1.2
  One use of a PQC signature algoritm is the protection …
[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Vijay Gurbani for the GENART review.

** Section 1.2
  One use of a PQC signature algoritm is the protection of software
  updates, perhaps using the format described in [RFC4108], to enable
  deployment of software that implements other new PQC algorithms for
  key management and confidentiality.

-- Typo. s/algoritm/algorithm/

-- Editorial.  Is this paragraph needed?  It seems out of place in its specificity.  Is the primary use of CMS for software updates?

** Section 3. Editorial.  Consider an explicit sentence here citing that the identifiers come from [FIPS205].

** Section 4
      When signed attributes are present, to ensure
      collision resistance, the identified hash function SHOULD produce
      a hash value that is at least twice the size of the hash function
      used in the SLH-DSA tree.

When would it be acceptable not seek collision resistance and choose a hash function which does NOT produce a hash value that is at least twice the size of the hash function?

** Section 5.
    Implementers SHOULD consider …

(used twice in this section)

What does it mean to “SHOULD consider …” a topic?  This is an optional adherence (“SHOULD”) to a non-binding review (“consider”).

** Section 6.
  If slh_sign is implemented in a hardware device such as hardware
  security module (HSM) or portable cryptographic token,
  implementations might want to avoid sending the full content to the
  device. 

What does “might want to” mean in terms of guidance?
2025-01-07
17 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw
2025-01-07
17 Mahesh Jethanandani [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mahesh Jethanandani
2025-01-06
17 Paul Wouters
[Ballot discuss]
In section 1 it states:

        This document only specifies the use of pure mode with an empty
    …
[Ballot discuss]
In section 1 it states:

        This document only specifies the use of pure mode with an empty
        context string for the CMS signed-data content type.

But Section 4 it states:

        When signed attributes are absent, the SLH-DSA (pure mode)
        signature is computed over the content. When signed attributes
        are present, a hash MUST be computed over the content using the
        same hash function that is used in the SLH-DSA tree.

My understanding is that the opposite of "pure mode" is "pre-hash mode", so
it seems that the sentence in Section 1 is wrong?

Then in Section 6 it states:

        Following the approach in the previous paragraph is essentially
        the same as using SLH-DSA in pre-hash mode, which means that a
        hash of the content is passed to the SLH-DSA signature operation
        instead of the full message content. For this reason, this
        document only specifies the use of SLH-DSA pure mode.


The collection of these three pieces makes the end result very confusing.
Imagine the IKEv2 protocol that maybe would say use the "pre-hash mode". It
would still use this document's specification to generate these, despite the
document's introduction stating it only does "pure mode".

Can't the document instead say something like "the specified algorithms are used
with both SLH-DSA in pure mode and in pre-hash mode" ?
2025-01-06
17 Paul Wouters [Ballot comment]
cannot fully parse:

        which consists of a few time signature construction,
2025-01-06
17 Paul Wouters [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Paul Wouters
2025-01-06
17 Orie Steele [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Orie Steele
2025-01-06
17 Gunter Van de Velde [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gunter Van de Velde
2025-01-03
17 Erik Kline [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline
2025-01-03
17 Éric Vyncke
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the work done in this document (even if the content was way above my head).

I have one question, and I …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the work done in this document (even if the content was way above my head).

I have one question, and I would really appreciate to receive an answer: this document seems to specify object identifiers from an external body, NIST, tree without any justification (i.e., I would assume that a liaison statement have been done and a reference to a NIST registry provided).

Last comment, section 2 would benefit from some SVG/ASCII ART graphics to explain how it works (e.g., similar to figure 1 of FIPS 205).
2025-01-03
17 Éric Vyncke [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke
2024-12-27
17 Jim Guichard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jim Guichard
2024-12-26
17 Vijay Gurbani Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Vijay Gurbani. Sent review to list.
2024-12-19
17 David Dong IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK
2024-12-19
17 David Dong IANA Experts State changed to Expert Reviews OK from Reviews assigned
2024-12-18
17 Jenny Bui Placed on agenda for telechat - 2025-01-09
2024-12-18
17 Deb Cooley Ballot has been issued
2024-12-18
17 Deb Cooley [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Deb Cooley
2024-12-18
17 Deb Cooley Created "Approve" ballot
2024-12-18
17 Deb Cooley IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2024-12-16
17 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2024-12-12
17 David Dong
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-lamps-cms-sphincs-plus-17. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon …
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-lamps-cms-sphincs-plus-17. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

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-slh-dsa-2024
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this document requests a registration in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we have initiated 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."

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
2024-12-12
17 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed
2024-12-07
17 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Daniel Migault
2024-12-04
17 David Dong IANA Experts State changed to Reviews assigned
2024-12-04
17 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Vijay Gurbani
2024-12-03
17 Barry Leiba Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Matthew Miller
2024-12-02
17 Jenny Bui IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2024-12-02
17 Jenny Bui
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-12-16):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: debcooley1@gmail.com, draft-ietf-lamps-cms-sphincs-plus@ietf.org, lamps-chairs@ietf.org, spasm@ietf.org, tim.hollebeek@digicert.com …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-12-16):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: debcooley1@gmail.com, draft-ietf-lamps-cms-sphincs-plus@ietf.org, lamps-chairs@ietf.org, spasm@ietf.org, tim.hollebeek@digicert.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Use of the SLH-DSA Signature Algorithm in the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)) 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: - 'Use of the
SLH-DSA Signature Algorithm in the Cryptographic Message
  Syntax (CMS)'
  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 2024-12-16. 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


  SLH-DSA is a stateless hash-based signature scheme.  This document
  specifies the conventions for using the SLH-DSA signature algorithm
  with the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS).  In addition, the
  algorithm identifier and public key syntax are provided.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-cms-sphincs-plus/



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




2024-12-02
17 Jenny Bui IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2024-12-02
17 Jenny Bui Last call announcement was generated
2024-11-30
17 Russ Housley New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-cms-sphincs-plus-17.txt
2024-11-30
17 Russ Housley New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Russ Housley)
2024-11-30
17 Russ Housley Uploaded new revision
2024-11-30
16 Deb Cooley Last call was requested
2024-11-30
16 Deb Cooley Last call announcement was generated
2024-11-30
16 Deb Cooley Ballot approval text was generated
2024-11-30
16 Deb Cooley IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation
2024-11-27
16 Deb Cooley AD review:  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/xQ0jkBFMe_LN0f6fqEjCPNy8Ino/
2024-11-27
16 Deb Cooley IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2024-11-27
16 Deb Cooley Ballot writeup was changed
2024-11-20
16 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?

There was extensive review and 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)?

CMS is extensively used in S/MIME and other use cases, for example financial
services messages.

## 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.

No.

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 reviews 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]?

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.

ASN.1 module was run through an ASN checker.

## 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?

The document is very well written.

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 list 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.

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 authors have stated that to the best of their knowledge, all relevant
disclosures have been filed.

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.)

The non-ascii character is a localized character in a name in a reference.

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?

Yes, the normative references are all standards documents.

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 look 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.

There are no new IANA 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/

2024-11-20
16 Tim Hollebeek IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2024-11-20
16 Tim Hollebeek IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2024-11-20
16 (System) Changed action holders to Deb Cooley (IESG state changed)
2024-11-20
16 Tim Hollebeek Responsible AD changed to Deb Cooley
2024-11-20
16 Tim Hollebeek Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested
2024-11-20
16 Tim Hollebeek Notification list changed to tim.hollebeek@digicert.com because the document shepherd was set
2024-11-20
16 Tim Hollebeek Document shepherd changed to Tim Hollebeek
2024-11-20
16 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?

There was extensive review and 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)?

CMS is extensively used in S/MIME and other use cases, for example financial
services messages.

## 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.

No.

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 reviews 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]?

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.

ASN.1 module was run through an ASN checker.

## 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?

The document is very well written.

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 list 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.

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 authors have stated that to the best of their knowledge, all relevant
disclosures have been filed.

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.)

The non-ascii character is a localized character in a name in a reference.

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?

Yes, the normative references are all standards documents.

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 look 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.

There are no new IANA 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/

2024-11-19
16 Tim Hollebeek Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2024-11-19
16 Tim Hollebeek Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2024-11-19
16 Tim Hollebeek IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2024-11-18
16 Russ Housley New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-cms-sphincs-plus-16.txt
2024-11-18
16 Russ Housley New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Russ Housley)
2024-11-18
16 Russ Housley Uploaded new revision
2024-11-15
15 Russ Housley New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-cms-sphincs-plus-15.txt
2024-11-15
15 Russ Housley New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Russ Housley)
2024-11-15
15 Russ Housley Uploaded new revision
2024-11-14
14 Russ Housley New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-cms-sphincs-plus-14.txt
2024-11-14
14 Russ Housley New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Russ Housley)
2024-11-14
14 Russ Housley Uploaded new revision
2024-11-14
13 Russ Housley New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-cms-sphincs-plus-13.txt
2024-11-14
13 Russ Housley New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Russ Housley)
2024-11-14
13 Russ Housley Uploaded new revision
2024-11-04
12 Russ Housley New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-cms-sphincs-plus-12.txt
2024-11-04
12 Russ Housley New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Russ Housley)
2024-11-04
12 Russ Housley Uploaded new revision
2024-11-03
11 Russ Housley New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-cms-sphincs-plus-11.txt
2024-11-03
11 Russ Housley New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Russ Housley)
2024-11-03
11 Russ Housley Uploaded new revision
2024-10-29
10 Cindy Morgan New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-cms-sphincs-plus-10.txt
2024-10-29
10 Cindy Morgan Secretariat manually posting. Approvals already received
2024-10-29
10 Cindy Morgan Uploaded new revision
2024-09-20
09 Tim Hollebeek WGLC ends Oct 4.
2024-09-20
09 Tim Hollebeek IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2024-08-21
09 Russ Housley New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-cms-sphincs-plus-09.txt
2024-08-21
09 Russ Housley New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Russ Housley)
2024-08-21
09 Russ Housley Uploaded new revision
2024-08-20
08 Russ Housley New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-cms-sphincs-plus-08.txt
2024-08-20
08 Russ Housley New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Russ Housley)
2024-08-20
08 Russ Housley Uploaded new revision
2024-07-05
07 Russ Housley New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-cms-sphincs-plus-07.txt
2024-07-05
07 Russ Housley New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Russ Housley)
2024-07-05
07 Russ Housley Uploaded new revision
2024-07-03
06 Russ Housley New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-cms-sphincs-plus-06.txt
2024-07-03
06 Russ Housley New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Russ Housley)
2024-07-03
06 Russ Housley Uploaded new revision
2024-05-28
05 Russ Housley New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-cms-sphincs-plus-05.txt
2024-05-28
05 Russ Housley New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Russ Housley)
2024-05-28
05 Russ Housley Uploaded new revision
2024-05-07
04 Russ Housley New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-cms-sphincs-plus-04.txt
2024-05-07
04 Russ Housley New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Russ Housley)
2024-05-07
04 Russ Housley Uploaded new revision
2023-11-14
03 Russ Housley New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-cms-sphincs-plus-03.txt
2023-11-14
03 Russ Housley New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Russ Housley)
2023-11-14
03 Russ Housley Uploaded new revision
2023-05-17
02 Russ Housley New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-cms-sphincs-plus-02.txt
2023-05-17
02 Russ Housley New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Russ Housley)
2023-05-17
02 Russ Housley Uploaded new revision
2023-03-21
01 Russ Housley Added to session: IETF-116: lamps  Wed-0030
2022-11-21
01 Russ Housley New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-cms-sphincs-plus-01.txt
2022-11-21
01 Russ Housley New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Russ Housley)
2022-11-21
01 Russ Housley Uploaded new revision
2022-10-31
00 Jenny Bui This document now replaces draft-housley-lamps-cms-sphincs-plus instead of None
2022-10-23
00 Russ Housley New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-cms-sphincs-plus-00.txt
2022-10-23
00 Tim Hollebeek WG -00 approved
2022-10-23
00 Russ Housley Set submitter to "Russ Housley ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: lamps-chairs@ietf.org
2022-10-23
00 Russ Housley Uploaded new revision