# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
## Document History
1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
The WG consensus was broad. MLS is not the biggest WG, but there were enough
WG that were active participants during its development that agreed the I-D
was ready to proceed down the road to satisfy both chairs; many of the
participants are implementers. Additionally, some of WG participants are also
part of the security research community and they agreed that the protocol
was provably secure. Without this research, the chairs would not progress this
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
Surprisingly, no. There was lots of back and forth as well as some frustration,
but generally speaking this development of this I-D was what I hope happens
for most I-Ds.
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.)
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] recommends) or elsewhere
We have a github implementation repo that can be found at:
But, a more accurate list of implementations is:
- MLSpp = open source, deployed in production
- OpenMLS = open source
- Wickr's implementation = closed source
- RingCentral's implementation = closed source, deployed in production
- Element's Typescript implementation = open source, only prototype-grade
## 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.
MLS was intentionally written to be independent of the application layer. See
draft-ietf-mls-architecture for more information.
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.
MLS uses the TLS presentation language. There is no formal expert review
criteria for the TLS presentation language.
There is a Media Type defined. IANA performed an early review and noted that
a few this needed to be addressed; a PR was created:
The revised registration was shared with the email@example.com mailing
7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools] 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]?
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.
## 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?
10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter]. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
After reviewing the list, it is not clear that most of the common issues apply
to this particular I-D. Remember, that there is also a companion archiecture
11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
Current Practice], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard],
[Informational, Experimental or Historic])? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
PS is the intended status. PS is the proper status for this on-the-wire
protocol. Yes, the datatracker state attributes correctly reflect PS.
12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79]? 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, I have personally verified with the authors that they have met the IPR
disclosure obligations in [BCP79].
NOTE: A 3rd party IPR disclosure was filed. Based on advice from Ben Kaduk,
who was our AD at the time, I sent the following email during WGLC to
determine how the WG wanted to handle the disclosure:
As you can see in the thread, the WG was comfortable progressing the I-D.
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.
I have personally verified that all authors are willing to be listed as such.
There are 6 authors listed and for a working group this size that might seem like
a lot, but each of the listed authors provided thrust at one point or another
to move this document along and I would be disinclined to remove one of them.
14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
tool] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
Lots of nits about lines too long. These seem to relate to the figures; SVG FTW.
Complaints about non-ascii text. These relate to authors' names.
There are two warnings related to references:
Outdated reference: draft-ietf-mls-architecture will likely always be out of
synch or the reference to this I-D in draft-ietf-mls-architecture to this I-D
will be out of synch.
Obsolete informational reference: RFC 7540 - this draft references HTTP/2 so
7540 is the correct reference. Also, review the text and you will note leaving
this alone is fine, i.e., the I-D does not need to update the reference to HTTP/3.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References].
I think the references are fine. Richard wanted me to note that during WGLC
we did move one normative reference to informative.
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
All normative references are to RFCs.
17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967] and [BCP
97]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry]? If so,
[AD fixup: Yes. RFC-9180 HPKE is an IRTF document and is Informational. 9180
should be added to the DOWNREF registry as other protocols (eg cose) are also
using HPKE, so this will come up more often.]
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?
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.
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]).
The Shepherd reviewed the assignment for consistency with the body of the I-D.
The Shepherd confirmed the following:
- All aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
- Any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified.
- Each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126]).
NOTE: Submitted an issue to expand the definition of the Recommended column
to include a "D" for discouraged; the consensus for RFC 8447bis at saag was
to add this new value to the registry.
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 four registry created by this I-D and all require DEs. Section
17.5 includes text for the DEs. Note that this text is based on the DE
text in RFC 8447.