Skip to main content

Use of the HSS and XMSS Hash-Based Signature Algorithms in Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure
draft-ietf-lamps-x509-shbs-13

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2024-12-17
13 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2024-12-17
13 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors
2024-12-16
13 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2024-12-12
13 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2024-12-12
13 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2024-12-12
13 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2024-12-12
13 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2024-12-12
13 (System) Removed all action holders (IESG state changed)
2024-12-12
13 Jenny Bui IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2024-12-12
13 Jenny Bui IESG has approved the document
2024-12-12
13 Jenny Bui Closed "Approve" ballot
2024-12-12
13 Jenny Bui Ballot approval text was generated
2024-12-12
13 Deb Cooley IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup
2024-12-12
13 (System) Changed action holders to Deb Cooley (IESG state changed)
2024-12-12
13 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed
2024-12-12
13 Daniel Van Geest New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-x509-shbs-13.txt
2024-12-12
13 Daniel Van Geest New version approved
2024-12-12
13 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniel Van Geest , Kaveh Bashiri , Scott Fluhrer , Stavros Kousidis , Stefan-Lukas Gazdag
2024-12-12
13 Daniel Van Geest Uploaded new revision
2024-12-06
12 (System) Changed action holders to Scott Fluhrer, Stefan-Lukas Gazdag, Daniel Van Geest, Stavros Kousidis, Kaveh Bashiri (IESG state changed)
2024-12-06
12 Deb Cooley IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup
2024-12-05
12 Jenny Bui IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation
2024-12-04
12 Murray Kucherawy [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy
2024-12-04
12 Orie Steele
[Ballot comment]
# Orie Steele, ART AD, comments for draft-ietf-lamps-x509-shbs-12
CC @OR13

* line numbers:
  - https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lamps-x509-shbs-12.txt&submitcheck=True

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Comments

### audited before the signature is published

```
172   In each of these cases, the operator is able to control their signing
173   environment such that signatures are generated in hardware
174   cryptographic modules and audited before the signature is published,
175   in order to prevent OTS key reuse.
```

The phrasing here is tripping me up a bit.
I think auditing prevents OTS key reuse, and that audits should be completed before a signature is produced.
I am not sure what publishing a signature means in this context.
Later in the document freezing and auditing is discussed, perhaps this could be explained better with reference to that section.

## Nits

### possible -> practical?

```
192   stateful HBS public key in the subordinate CA certificate may be
193   possible.
```
2024-12-04
12 Orie Steele [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Orie Steele
2024-12-04
12 Paul Wouters [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Paul Wouters
2024-12-04
12 Zaheduzzaman Sarker [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker
2024-12-03
12 Francesca Palombini [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Francesca Palombini
2024-12-02
12 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2024-12-02
12 Daniel Van Geest New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-x509-shbs-12.txt
2024-12-02
12 Daniel Van Geest New version approved
2024-12-02
12 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniel Van Geest , Kaveh Bashiri , Scott Fluhrer , Stavros Kousidis , Stefan-Lukas Gazdag
2024-12-02
12 Daniel Van Geest Uploaded new revision
2024-11-29
11 Gunter Van de Velde
[Ballot comment]
# Gunter Van de Velde, RTG AD, comments for draft-ietf-lamps-x509-shbs-11

# The line numbers used are rendered from IETF idnits tool: https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lamps-x509-shbs-11.txt

# …
[Ballot comment]
# Gunter Van de Velde, RTG AD, comments for draft-ietf-lamps-x509-shbs-11

# The line numbers used are rendered from IETF idnits tool: https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lamps-x509-shbs-11.txt

# Thank you for the work spending in this document. I found it hard to read, but i suspect that is because of my unfamiliarity with the technologies documented within this text.

# The document does not have a terminology section explaining the abbreviations used in the document. Consider adding such section. Sometimes an abbreviation is expended upon first usage, sometimes it is not, for example "OID"

#DETAILED COMMENTS
#=================

116   A stateful HBS private key is a finite collection of OTS keys, hence
117   only a limited number of messages can be signed and the private key's

GV> The statement "A stateful HBS private key is a finite collection of OTS keys"
is mostly correct, but it can be made more precise. What about the following:

"
A stateful HBS private key consists of a finite collection of OTS keys, along
with state information that tracks the usage of these keys to ensure the
security of the scheme.
"

122   longer signing time.  Due to the statefulness of the private key and
123   the limited number of signatures that can be created, stateful HBS
124   schemes might not be appropriate for use in interactive protocols.

GV> Would the following not be a more digestible textblob to say the same:

"
Because the private key in stateful HBS schemes is stateful and the number
of signatures that can be generated is limited, these schemes may be
unsuitable for use in interactive protocols.
"
2024-11-29
11 Gunter Van de Velde [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gunter Van de Velde
2024-11-26
11 Jim Guichard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jim Guichard
2024-11-26
11 Éric Vyncke [Ballot comment]
Beside the lack of justification for the intended status in the shepherd write-up, no INT specific comments.
2024-11-26
11 Éric Vyncke [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke
2024-11-23
11 Roman Danyliw
[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Stewart Bryant for the GENART review.

Thank you Russ Housley and Daniel Van Geest for answering my DISCUSS and COMMENT …
[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Stewart Bryant for the GENART review.

Thank you Russ Housley and Daniel Van Geest for answering my DISCUSS and COMMENT feedback.
2024-11-23
11 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] Position for Roman Danyliw has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2024-11-22
11 Roman Danyliw
[Ballot discuss]
Process note for the responsible AD/IESG:

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 8391

This reference was not called out …
[Ballot discuss]
Process note for the responsible AD/IESG:

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 8391

This reference was not called out in the IETF Last Call and the document in not in the DOWNREF registry.  At the telechat, the IESG will have to agree that this is an acceptable reference to use.
2024-11-22
11 Roman Danyliw
[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Stewart Bryant for the GENART review.

** Section 10.  Are any of the “strategies for a correct state management can …
[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Stewart Bryant for the GENART review.

** Section 10.  Are any of the “strategies for a correct state management can be applied” normative (i.e., choose from one of these options).  If they are, [MCGREW] needs to be a normative reference.
2024-11-22
11 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw
2024-11-16
11 Erik Kline [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline
2024-11-15
11 Daniel Van Geest New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-x509-shbs-11.txt
2024-11-15
11 Daniel Van Geest New version approved
2024-11-15
11 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniel Van Geest , Kaveh Bashiri , Scott Fluhrer , Stavros Kousidis , Stefan-Lukas Gazdag
2024-11-15
11 Daniel Van Geest Uploaded new revision
2024-11-15
10 Daniel Van Geest New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-x509-shbs-10.txt
2024-11-15
10 Daniel Van Geest New version approved
2024-11-15
10 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniel Van Geest , Kaveh Bashiri , Scott Fluhrer , Stavros Kousidis , Stefan-Lukas Gazdag
2024-11-15
10 Daniel Van Geest Uploaded new revision
2024-11-14
09 Cindy Morgan Placed on agenda for telechat - 2024-12-05
2024-11-14
09 Deb Cooley Comments to be resolved before telechat:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/HCgvt8xlL9nTPhRFriOZnykwIcs/
2024-11-14
09 Deb Cooley Ballot has been issued
2024-11-14
09 Deb Cooley [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Deb Cooley
2024-11-14
09 Deb Cooley Created "Approve" ballot
2024-11-14
09 Deb Cooley IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup
2024-11-14
09 Deb Cooley Ballot writeup was changed
2024-11-13
09 (System) Changed action holders to Deb Cooley (IESG state changed)
2024-11-13
09 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed
2024-11-13
09 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2024-11-13
09 Daniel Van Geest New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-x509-shbs-09.txt
2024-11-13
09 (System) New version approved
2024-11-13
09 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniel Van Geest , Kaveh Bashiri , Scott Fluhrer , Stavros Kousidis , Stefan-Lukas Gazdag
2024-11-13
09 Daniel Van Geest Uploaded new revision
2024-11-13
08 Deb Cooley
From the reviews, comments, and responses (and a peek at the github pull requests) it appears that the ID needs to be revised (updated) before …
From the reviews, comments, and responses (and a peek at the github pull requests) it appears that the ID needs to be revised (updated) before I can send it to the telechat.  When you issue the new ID, and let me know you are finished, I will review (one last time) and schedule a telechat review.  Deb
2024-11-13
08 (System) Changed action holders to Scott Fluhrer, Stefan-Lukas Gazdag, Daniel Van Geest, Stavros Kousidis, Kaveh Bashiri (IESG state changed)
2024-11-13
08 Deb Cooley IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2024-10-25
08 Stewart Bryant Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Stewart Bryant. Sent review to list.
2024-10-25
08 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2024-10-24
08 Magnus Nyström Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Magnus Nyström. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.
2024-10-24
08 Magnus Nyström Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Magnus Nyström.
2024-10-21
08 David Dong
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-lamps-x509-shbs-08. 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-x509-shbs-08. 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 PKIX Module Identifiers 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-pkix1-shbs-2024
Reference: [ 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 PKIX Algorithms registry also on the Structure of Management Information (SMI) Numbers (MIB Module Registrations) registry group located at:

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

two existing registrations made by this document will have their references updated:

Decimal: 34
Description: id-alg-xmss-hashsig
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Decimal: 35
Description: id-alg-xmssmt-hashsig
Reference: [ 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
2024-10-21
08 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2024-10-19
08 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Magnus Nyström
2024-10-17
08 David Dong IANA Experts State changed to Expert Reviews OK from Reviews assigned
2024-10-17
08 David Dong IANA Experts State changed to Reviews assigned
2024-10-17
08 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Stewart Bryant
2024-10-11
08 Jenny Bui IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2024-10-11
08 Jenny Bui
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-10-25):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: debcooley1@gmail.com, draft-ietf-lamps-x509-shbs@ietf.org, housley@vigilsec.com, lamps-chairs@ietf.org, spasm@ietf.org …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-10-25):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: debcooley1@gmail.com, draft-ietf-lamps-x509-shbs@ietf.org, housley@vigilsec.com, lamps-chairs@ietf.org, spasm@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure: Algorithm Identifiers for HSS and XMSS) 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: - 'Internet
X.509 Public Key Infrastructure: Algorithm Identifiers for
  HSS and XMSS'
  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 2024-10-25. 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 algorithm identifiers and ASN.1 encoding
  formats for the stateful hash-based signature (HBS) schemes
  Hierarchical Signature System (HSS), eXtended Merkle Signature Scheme
  (XMSS), and XMSS^MT, a multi-tree variant of XMSS.  This
  specification applies to the Internet X.509 Public Key infrastructure
  (PKI) when those digital signatures are used in Internet X.509
  certificates and certificate revocation lists.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-x509-shbs/



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


The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    rfc8391: XMSS: eXtended Merkle Signature Scheme (Informational - Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) stream)



2024-10-11
08 Jenny Bui IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2024-10-11
08 Jenny Bui Last call announcement was generated
2024-10-11
08 Deb Cooley Last call was requested
2024-10-11
08 Deb Cooley Last call announcement was generated
2024-10-11
08 Deb Cooley Ballot approval text was generated
2024-10-11
08 Deb Cooley Ballot writeup was generated
2024-10-11
08 Deb Cooley Please make this a 3 week last call....  (only because there is plenty of time to do so)
2024-10-11
08 Deb Cooley IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested
2024-10-08
08 Russ Housley
# Shepherd Write-up for draft-ietf-lamps-x509-shbs-08

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with …
# Shepherd Write-up for draft-ietf-lamps-x509-shbs-08

## 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 support in the LAMPS WG for this document.  All comments that
  were raised during WG Last Call wre resolved.

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

  There was little controversy, and suggested improvements were readily
  accepted by the authors.

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 one has threatened an appeal.

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)?

  Some code written has been written.  The examples in Appendix A were
  generated using that code.

## 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 concerns about interaction with other technologies.

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 special reviews are needed.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

  This document does not include a 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 module compiles 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?

  Yes.

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?

    No concerns were noticed.

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?

    As reflected in the Datatracker: Proposed Standard on the IETF Stream.

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.

    The authors have explicitly stated that he is unaware of any IPR
    that needs to be declared.

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.)

    IDnits offers a complaint about non-ASCII characters, but they are due
    to names in references and a non-ASCII hyphen in the title of a
    reference.

    IDnits offers a complaint about long lines.  These will be resolved when
    "{{I-D.draft-ietf-lamps-rfc8708bis}}" is replaced with an RFC number.
    That Internet-Draft is already in the RFC Editor queue.
   
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

    No concerns.

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 normative 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.

    The IETF Last Call for this document will need to call out RFC 8391 as a
    downref.

    This document has a normative reference to RFC 5911, which is
    already in the downref registry.
   
    This document specified the conventions for using the HSS/LMS, XMSS, and
    XMSS^MT signature algorithms in X.509 certificates.  HSS/LMS is specified
    in RFC 8554, which is already in the downref registry.  XMSS and XMSS^MT
    are specified in RFC 8391, which is not yet in the downref registry.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

    All normative references are published RFCs, an Internet-Draft that is
    already in the RFC Editor queue, and a NIST publication that is publicly
    available.

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.

    No, this document will not change the status of any other document.

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]).

    This document calls for the allocation of one object identifier for the
    ASN.1 module in Appendix A.  In addition, two early assignments have been
    made in the "SMI Security for PKIX Algorithms" (1.3.6.1.5.5.7.6) registry
    for the XMSS and XMSS^MT signature algorithms; these entries will be
    updated to point to the RFC when this document is finally published.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

    All three of the object identifier assignments discussed in item 20
    require Designated Expert approval.  Designated Expert was already
    obtained for the early assignment of the algorithm identifiers.  The
    ASN.1 module identifier is not controversial.
2024-10-08
08 Russ Housley IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2024-10-08
08 Russ Housley IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2024-10-08
08 (System) Changed action holders to Deb Cooley (IESG state changed)
2024-10-08
08 Russ Housley Responsible AD changed to Deb Cooley
2024-10-08
08 Russ Housley Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested
2024-10-08
08 Russ Housley
# Shepherd Write-up for draft-ietf-lamps-x509-shbs-08

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with …
# Shepherd Write-up for draft-ietf-lamps-x509-shbs-08

## 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 support in the LAMPS WG for this document.  All comments that
  were raised during WG Last Call wre resolved.

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

  There was little controversy, and suggested improvements were readily
  accepted by the authors.

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 one has threatened an appeal.

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)?

  Some code written has been written.  The examples in Appendix A were
  generated using that code.

## 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 concerns about interaction with other technologies.

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 special reviews are needed.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

  This document does not include a 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 module compiles 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?

  Yes.

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?

    No concerns were noticed.

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?

    As reflected in the Datatracker: Proposed Standard on the IETF Stream.

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.

    The authors have explicitly stated that he is unaware of any IPR
    that needs to be declared.

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.)

    IDnits offers a complaint about non-ASCII characters, but they are due
    to names in references and a non-ASCII hyphen in the title of a
    reference.

    IDnits offers a complaint about long lines.  These will be resolved when
    "{{I-D.draft-ietf-lamps-rfc8708bis}}" is replaced with an RFC number.
    That Internet-Draft is already in the RFC Editor queue.
   
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

    No concerns.

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 normative 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.

    The IETF Last Call for this document will need to call out RFC 8391 as a
    downref.

    This document has a normative reference to RFC 5911, which is
    already in the downref registry.
   
    This document specified the conventions for using the HSS/LMS, XMSS, and
    XMSS^MT signature algorithms in X.509 certificates.  HSS/LMS is specified
    in RFC 8554, which is already in the downref registry.  XMSS and XMSS^MT
    are specified in RFC 8391, which is not yet in the downref registry.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

    All normative references are published RFCs, an Internet-Draft that is
    already in the RFC Editor queue, and a NIST publication that is publicly
    available.

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.

    No, this document will not change the status of any other document.

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]).

    This document calls for the allocation of one object identifier for the
    ASN.1 module in Appendix A.  In addition, two early assignments have been
    made in the "SMI Security for PKIX Algorithms" (1.3.6.1.5.5.7.6) registry
    for the XMSS and XMSS^MT signature algorithms; these entries will be
    updated to point to the RFC when this document is finally published.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

    All three of the object identifier assignments discussed in item 20
    require Designated Expert approval.  Designated Expert was already
    obtained for the early assignment of the algorithm identifiers.  The
    ASN.1 module identifier is not controversial.
2024-10-06
08 Daniel Van Geest New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-x509-shbs-08.txt
2024-10-06
08 (System) New version approved
2024-10-06
08 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniel Van Geest , Kaveh Bashiri , Scott Fluhrer , Stavros Kousidis , Stefan-Lukas Gazdag
2024-10-06
08 Daniel Van Geest Uploaded new revision
2024-10-04
07 Daniel Van Geest New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-x509-shbs-07.txt
2024-10-04
07 (System) New version approved
2024-10-04
07 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniel Van Geest , Kaveh Bashiri , Scott Fluhrer , Stavros Kousidis , Stefan-Lukas Gazdag
2024-10-04
07 Daniel Van Geest Uploaded new revision
2024-10-04
06 Daniel Van Geest New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-x509-shbs-06.txt
2024-10-04
06 (System) New version approved
2024-10-04
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniel Van Geest , Kaveh Bashiri , Scott Fluhrer , Stavros Kousidis , Stefan-Lukas Gazdag
2024-10-04
06 Daniel Van Geest Uploaded new revision
2024-10-03
05 Russ Housley Notification list changed to housley@vigilsec.com because the document shepherd was set
2024-10-03
05 Russ Housley Document shepherd changed to Russ Housley
2024-10-03
05 Russ Housley Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2024-10-03
05 Russ Housley Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2024-10-02
05 Russ Housley Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared.
2024-10-02
05 Russ Housley IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2024-09-25
05 Daniel Van Geest New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-x509-shbs-05.txt
2024-09-25
05 (System) New version approved
2024-09-25
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniel Van Geest , Kaveh Bashiri , Scott Fluhrer , Stavros Kousidis , Stefan-Lukas Gazdag
2024-09-25
05 Daniel Van Geest Uploaded new revision
2024-09-19
04 Russ Housley Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set.
2024-09-19
04 Russ Housley IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2024-07-25
04 Daniel Van Geest New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-x509-shbs-04.txt
2024-07-25
04 (System) New version approved
2024-07-25
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniel Van Geest , Kaveh Bashiri , Scott Fluhrer , Stavros Kousidis , Stefan-Lukas Gazdag
2024-07-25
04 Daniel Van Geest Uploaded new revision
2024-07-08
03 Daniel Van Geest New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-x509-shbs-03.txt
2024-07-08
03 (System) New version approved
2024-07-08
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniel Van Geest , Kaveh Bashiri , Scott Fluhrer , Stavros Kousidis , Stefan-Lukas Gazdag
2024-07-08
03 Daniel Van Geest Uploaded new revision
2024-07-04
02 Daniel Van Geest New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-x509-shbs-02.txt
2024-07-04
02 (System) New version approved
2024-07-04
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniel Van Geest , Kaveh Bashiri , Scott Fluhrer , Stavros Kousidis , Stefan-Lukas Gazdag
2024-07-04
02 Daniel Van Geest Uploaded new revision
2024-06-04
01 Daniel Van Geest New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-x509-shbs-01.txt
2024-06-04
01 (System) New version approved
2024-06-04
01 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniel Van Geest , Kaveh Bashiri , Scott Fluhrer , Stavros Kousidis , Stefan-Lukas Gazdag
2024-06-04
01 Daniel Van Geest Uploaded new revision
2024-05-03
00 Russ Housley This document now replaces draft-gazdag-x509-shbs instead of None
2024-05-03
00 Daniel Van Geest New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-x509-shbs-00.txt
2024-05-03
00 Russ Housley WG -00 approved
2024-05-03
00 Daniel Van Geest Set submitter to "Daniel Van Geest ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: lamps-chairs@ietf.org
2024-05-03
00 Daniel Van Geest Uploaded new revision