Skip to main content

Use of the HSS/LMS Hash-Based Signature Algorithm in the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
draft-ietf-lamps-rfc8708bis-03

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-rfc8708bis and RFC 9708, changed IESG state to RFC …
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-ietf-lamps-rfc8708bis and RFC 9708, changed IESG state to RFC Published)
2025-01-08
03 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2024-12-23
03 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48
2024-12-20
03 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2024-10-18
03 Carlos Pignataro Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events'
2024-10-18
03 Carlos Pignataro Assignment of request for Last Call review by OPSDIR to Marisol Palmero was marked no-response
2024-10-02
03 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2024-10-02
03 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2024-10-02
03 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2024-09-23
03 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2024-09-23
03 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2024-09-23
03 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2024-09-23
03 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2024-09-20
03 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2024-09-20
03 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2024-09-20
03 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2024-09-20
03 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2024-09-20
03 Cindy Morgan Ballot approval text was generated
2024-09-20
03 Cindy Morgan Ballot writeup was changed
2024-09-20
03 (System) Removed all action holders (IESG state changed)
2024-09-20
03 Deb Cooley IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2024-09-20
03 Paul Wouters [Ballot comment]
Thanks for the discussion and the changes. I have updated my ballot to Yes
2024-09-20
03 Paul Wouters [Ballot Position Update] Position for Paul Wouters has been changed to Yes from Discuss
2024-09-19
03 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2024-09-19
03 Russ Housley New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-rfc8708bis-03.txt
2024-09-19
03 Russ Housley New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Russ Housley)
2024-09-19
03 Russ Housley Uploaded new revision
2024-09-05
02 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation
2024-09-05
02 Murray Kucherawy [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy
2024-09-04
02 Zaheduzzaman Sarker [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker
2024-09-03
02 John Scudder [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for John Scudder
2024-09-03
02 Warren Kumari [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari
2024-09-03
02 Roman Danyliw [Ballot comment]
Thank you to Linda Dunbar for the GENART review.
2024-09-03
02 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw
2024-09-03
02 Jim Guichard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jim Guichard
2024-09-02
02 Paul Wouters
[Ballot discuss]
Why is SHAKE256 picked over SHA3-256? Doesn't this cut the preimage resistance in half? Is the increased speed of 2x compared to SHA2-256 …
[Ballot discuss]
Why is SHAKE256 picked over SHA3-256? Doesn't this cut the preimage resistance in half? Is the increased speed of 2x compared to SHA2-256 really that important? What considerations were made for this? Why not define both SHA3-256 and SHAKE256 and let people pick their preferred option? Should the reasoning for these choices perhaps be added to the document so others can be informed about the choices made?
2024-09-02
02 Paul Wouters
[Ballot comment]

        Recent advances in cryptanalysis [BH2013] and progress in the development
        of quantum computers [NAS2019] pose …
[Ballot comment]

        Recent advances in cryptanalysis [BH2013] and progress in the development
        of quantum computers [NAS2019] pose a threat

        If cryptographically relevant quantum computers (CRQCs) are ever
        built, these computers will be able to

I find the first sentence contradicting the rest of the section. Maybe say
"future threat" or "possible threat"?


        The HSS/LMS signatures [HASHSIG] are currently defined to use
        SHA-256 [SHS] and SHAKE256 [SHA3].

I guess I am seeing a start of confusion about SHA3 vs SHAKE256. But I think it is
too late to try and fix that terminology now :/


        An implementation MUST ensure that an LM-OTS private key is used
        to generate a signature only one time and ensure that it cannot
        be used for any other purpose.

How can an implementer "ensure that it cannot be used for any other purpose" ?
You mean with EKU flags or something else?
2024-09-02
02 Paul Wouters [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Paul Wouters
2024-09-01
02 Mahesh Jethanandani
[Ballot comment]
I am yet to see a response to the SECDIR review done by Donald Eastlake. Hope the authors are planning to address the …
[Ballot comment]
I am yet to see a response to the SECDIR review done by Donald Eastlake. Hope the authors are planning to address the comments.

Section 1.4, paragraph 4
>    Provide more detail in Section 4 regarding allowed values in the
>    X.509 certificate key usage extension for an HSS/LMS public key.

Is this a TODO for the author?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

These URLs in the document did not return content:

* http://www.springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddocument/9783540887010-c1.pdf

Section 1, paragraph 1
> ystem to efficiently scale for a larger numbers of signatures. The HSS/LMS al
>                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The plural noun "numbers" cannot be used with the article "a". Did you mean "a
larger number" or "larger numbers"?
2024-09-01
02 Mahesh Jethanandani [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mahesh Jethanandani
2024-08-30
02 Éric Vyncke
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work done in this document. Some non-blocking comments though ;-)

The shepherd's write-up is slight inconsistent as it says …
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work done in this document. Some non-blocking comments though ;-)

The shepherd's write-up is slight inconsistent as it says that this I-D "updates" RFC 8708 while it actually obsoletes it. Also, I am unsure whether this I-D is fixing an erratum (Q1 of the template) or at least the erratum reference would be welcome.

## Section 1.3

I find weird to have a 2013 reference in the same sentence as "recent advances", see `Recent advances in cryptanalysis [BH2013]` ;-)

## Section 1.4

Is there some hand waving in this section with terms like `there are plans` and `yet-to-be-published` ? I am not very familiar in the PKIX/CMS parts of the Internet, so this may well be clear for more knowledgeable people.
2024-08-30
02 Éric Vyncke [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke
2024-08-29
02 Gunter Van de Velde [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gunter Van de Velde
2024-08-29
02 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2024-08-21
02 Orie Steele [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Orie Steele
2024-08-17
02 Erik Kline [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Erik Kline
2024-08-15
02 Deb Cooley Placed on agenda for telechat - 2024-09-05
2024-08-15
02 Deb Cooley Ballot has been issued
2024-08-15
02 Deb Cooley [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Deb Cooley
2024-08-15
02 Deb Cooley Created "Approve" ballot
2024-08-15
02 Deb Cooley IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2024-08-15
02 Deb Cooley Ballot writeup was changed
2024-08-13
02 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2024-08-13
02 Russ Housley New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-rfc8708bis-02.txt
2024-08-13
02 Russ Housley New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Russ Housley)
2024-08-13
02 Russ Housley Uploaded new revision
2024-08-13
01 Donald Eastlake Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Donald Eastlake.
2024-08-13
01 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2024-08-10
01 Carlos Pignataro Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Marisol Palmero
2024-08-09
01 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2024-08-09
01 David Dong
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-lamps-rfc8708bis-01. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

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

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-lamps-rfc8708bis-01. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

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/

The existing registry for value 64; description: id-mod-mts-hashsig-2013

will have its reference changed from [RFC8708] to [ RFC-to-be ].

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

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

The existing registry for value 17; description: id-alg-hss-lms-hashsig

will have its reference changed from [RFC8708] to [ RFC-to-be ].

We understand that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

NOTE: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist
2024-08-09
01 Linda Dunbar Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Linda Dunbar. Sent review to list.
2024-08-02
01 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Donald Eastlake
2024-08-01
01 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Linda Dunbar
2024-07-30
01 Jenny Bui IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2024-07-30
01 Jenny Bui
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-08-13):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: debcooley1@gmail.com, draft-ietf-lamps-rfc8708bis@ietf.org, lamps-chairs@ietf.org, spasm@ietf.org, tim.hollebeek@digicert.com …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-08-13):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: debcooley1@gmail.com, draft-ietf-lamps-rfc8708bis@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 HSS/LMS Hash-Based 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
HSS/LMS Hash-Based 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 2024-08-12. 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 conventions for using the Hierarchical
  Signature System (HSS) / Leighton-Micali Signature (LMS) hash-based
  signature algorithm with the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS).  In
  addition, the algorithm identifier and public key syntax are
  provided.  The HSS/LMS algorithm is one form of hash-based digital
  signature; it is described in RFC 8554.  This document obsoletes RFC
  8708
.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-rfc8708bis/



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




2024-07-30
01 Jenny Bui IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2024-07-29
01 Deb Cooley Last call was requested
2024-07-29
01 Deb Cooley Last call announcement was generated
2024-07-29
01 Deb Cooley Ballot approval text was generated
2024-07-29
01 Deb Cooley Ballot writeup was generated
2024-07-29
01 Deb Cooley IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation
2024-07-29
01 Deb Cooley IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2024-07-11
01 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 is broad support for fixing this errata.

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 being driven by existing implementations, which need additional
functionality beyond what RFC 8708 provides.

## 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.

This document is strictly limited to updating RFC 8708, which itself is pretty
specific to LAMPS.

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.

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.

The ASN.1 in the document was reviewed by an expert, and the ASN.1 module at the
end compiled without 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?

The document is relatively straightforward (at least, to those who can read
RFC 8708) and clear.  The overview in section 1.4 is very helpful, and the
motivation is 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 checklist was followed.

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, which is correct since it updates RFC 8708, which is standards
track.  Datatracker is correct.

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.

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.)

Notes on nits:
- RFC 8554 is already in the downref registry, as are 5911 and 6268. 
  The rest are fine, too.  The Nspk references are actually array indexes
  in pseudocode.

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

No.

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 of the normative references are open standards.

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.

Yes, this is an update to RFC 8708.  Datatracker and the abstract are correct.

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]).

No IANA considerations.

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 new 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/

2024-07-11
01 Tim Hollebeek IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2024-07-11
01 Tim Hollebeek IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2024-07-11
01 (System) Changed action holders to Deb Cooley (IESG state changed)
2024-07-11
01 Tim Hollebeek Responsible AD changed to Deb Cooley
2024-07-11
01 Tim Hollebeek Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested
2024-07-11
01 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 is broad support for fixing this errata.

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 being driven by existing implementations, which need additional
functionality beyond what RFC 8708 provides.

## 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.

This document is strictly limited to updating RFC 8708, which itself is pretty
specific to LAMPS.

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.

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.

The ASN.1 in the document was reviewed by an expert, and the ASN.1 module at the
end compiled without 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?

The document is relatively straightforward (at least, to those who can read
RFC 8708) and clear.  The overview in section 1.4 is very helpful, and the
motivation is 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 checklist was followed.

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, which is correct since it updates RFC 8708, which is standards
track.  Datatracker is correct.

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.

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.)

Notes on nits:
- RFC 8554 is already in the downref registry, as are 5911 and 6268. 
  The rest are fine, too.  The Nspk references are actually array indexes
  in pseudocode.

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

No.

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 of the normative references are open standards.

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.

Yes, this is an update to RFC 8708.  Datatracker and the abstract are correct.

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]).

No IANA considerations.

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 new 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/

2024-07-11
01 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 is broad support for fixing this errata.

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 being driven by existing implementations, which need additional
functionality beyond what RFC 8708 provides.

## 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.

This document is strictly limited to updating RFC 8708, which itself is pretty
specific to LAMPS.

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.

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.

The ASN.1 in the document was reviewed by an expert, and the ASN.1 module at the
end compiled without 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?

The document is relatively straightforward (at least, to those who can read
RFC 8708) and clear.  The overview in section 1.4 is very helpful, and the
motivation is 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 checklist was followed.

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, which is correct since it updates RFC 8708, which is standards
track.  Datatracker is correct.

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.

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.)

Notes on nits:
- RFC 8554 is already in the downref registry, as are 5911 and 6268. 
  The rest are fine, too.  The Nspk references are actually array indexes
  in pseudocode.

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

No.

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 of the normative references are open standards.

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.

Yes, this is an update to RFC 8708.  Datatracker and the abstract are correct.

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]).

No IANA considerations.

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 new 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/

2024-07-11
01 Tim Hollebeek Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2024-07-11
01 Tim Hollebeek Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2024-07-11
01 Tim Hollebeek Notification list changed to tim.hollebeek@digicert.com because the document shepherd was set
2024-07-11
01 Tim Hollebeek Document shepherd changed to Tim Hollebeek
2024-07-11
01 Tim Hollebeek IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document
2024-06-06
01 Russ Housley New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-rfc8708bis-01.txt
2024-06-06
01 Russ Housley New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Russ Housley)
2024-06-06
01 Russ Housley Uploaded new revision
2024-05-30
00 Russ Housley New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-rfc8708bis-00.txt
2024-05-30
00 Tim Hollebeek WG -00 approved
2024-05-29
00 Russ Housley Set submitter to "Russ Housley ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: lamps-chairs@ietf.org
2024-05-29
00 Russ Housley Uploaded new revision