Post-quantum hybrid ECDHE-MLKEM Key Agreement for TLSv1.3
draft-ietf-tls-ecdhe-mlkem-05

# 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?

The working group consensus represents a broad agreement to publish the document.



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

Originally consensus could not be reached on which groups to mark as Recommended "Y" in the IANA registry, so all groups were initially defined as Recommended N.  Since the initial publication request, the working group reached consensus to update the recommended status
of the IANA registration for X25519MLKEM768 from "N" to "Y". 

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.)

I do not know of any appeal directly related to this document.

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)?

There is significant implementation of the groups in this document.  In particular X25519MLKEM is widely support by browsers including chrome and firefox and by CDNs such as cloud flare.  Vendors such as RedHat and AWS also support the other groups in this document. Many TLS libraries already support or have announced plans to support one or more groups define in this doucment.

## 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 has received review from the IETF cryptographic community involved in TLS and Post-Quantum Crypto algorithms.

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.

NA

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]?

NA

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.

NA

## 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 shepherd believes the document is ready to be handed off to the AD

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 review area that is most relevant is security area. The document has undergone some terminology updates based on review.

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?
This document is proposed standard.  It updates the recommended column of pre-standard code points to D so it needs to be a standards track document.

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.

To the best of my knowledge all disclosures have been filed. No 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.)

There are no known remaining I-D-nits.

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

References are list appropriately

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.

There are no downrefs that are not listed in the registry (RFC 7748 is listed in the 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?

NA

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.

This document does not change the state of any existing RFCs

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]).

All aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are covered in the IANA section.  The referenced registries are clearly identified. No new registries are created.

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.

NA

[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/

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for having run an 2nd IETF Last Call to gauge the community consensus and the 1-letter change (important change though).

Like Med, I think that an addendum to the shepherd's write-up would be useful.

[Ballot comment]
It would be helpful if this part of the write-up was updated to reflect the latest discussion and outcome:

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

The main controversy was about which hybrid groups to mark as Recommended Y in
the IANA registry.  Consensus could not be reached on this point so all groups
defined in the document remain as Recommended N.  The general consensus of the
working group was to move forward with document publication as is.  Updating
the registry can be done in a future document if the working group can reach
consensus."

[Ballot comment]
This draft was in the RFC Editor's queue when the working group decided that it was time to update one of the IANA registry hybrid suites to Recommended = Y.
There is literally a one letter change (N -> Y).

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-tls-ecdhe-mlkem-05. We had also reviewed version -04 in a previous Last Call. 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 TLS Supported Groups registry in the Transport Layer Security (TLS) Parameters registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-parameters/

three existing registrations will have their references changed to [ RFC-to-be ] as follows:

Value: 4588 (0x11EC)
Description: X25519MLKEM768
DTLS-OK: Y
Recommended: Y
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Comment: Combining X25519 ECDH with ML-KEM-768

Value: 4587 (0x11EB)
Description: SecP256r1MLKEM768
DTLS-OK: Y
Recommended: N
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Comment: Combining secp256r1 ECDH with ML-KEM-768

Value: 4589 (0x11ED)
Description: SecP384r1MLKEM1024
DTLS-OK: Y
Recommended: N
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Comment: Combining secp384r1 ECDH with ML-KEM-1024

Second, also in the TLS Supported Groups registry in the Transport Layer Security (TLS) Parameters registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-parameters/

two existing registrations are to be obsoleted and have the registrations changed as follows:

Value: 25497
Description: X25519Kyber768Draft00 (OBSOLETE)
DTLS-OK: Y
Recommended: D
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Comment: Pre-standards version of Kyber768. Obsoleted by [ RFC-to-be ].

Value: 25498
Description: SecP256r1Kyber768Draft00 (OBSOLETE)
DTLS-OK: Y
Recommended: D
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Comment: Pre-standards version of Kyber768. Obsoleted by [ RFC-to-be ].

As this document updates registrations in registry requiring expert review, we have completed the required expert review via a separate request.

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

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2026-06-09):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-tls-ecdhe-mlkem@ietf.org, joe@salowey.net, paul.wouters@aiven.io, tls-chairs@ietf.org, tls@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Post-quantum hybrid ECDHE-MLKEM Key Agreement for TLSv1.3) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Transport Layer Security WG (tls) to
consider the following document: - 'Post-quantum hybrid ECDHE-MLKEM Key
Agreement for TLSv1.3'
  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 2026-06-09. 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.

This is a second Last Call for draft-ietf-tls-ecdhe-mlkem. After this
document passed IESG Review and was sent to the RFC Editor, the TLS
working group determined consensus that X25519MLKEM768 should be
promoted to 'Recommended'.  One of the options for updating the
registry is through standards action, so this is the IETF last call to
update the status of X25519MLKEM768 from "Recommended: N" to
"Recommended: Y" in draft-ietf-tls-ecdhe-mlkem. This change would
update the IANA considerations in Section 7.1."

Abstract

  This draft defines three hybrid key agreement mechanisms for TLS 1.3
  - X25519MLKEM768, SecP256r1MLKEM768, and SecP384r1MLKEM1024 - that
  combine the post-quantum ML-KEM (Module-Lattice-Based Key
  Encapsulation Mechanism) with an ECDHE (Elliptic Curve Diffie-
  Hellman) exchange.


The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-ecdhe-mlkem/

The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/7227/

The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design: Hybrid key exchange in TLS 1.3 (None - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) stream)

This is a second Last Call for draft-ietf-tls-ecdhe-mlkem. After this
document passed IESG Review and was sent to the RFC Editor, the TLS
working group determined consensus that X25519MLKEM768 should be
promoted to 'Recommended'.  One of the options for updating the
registry is through standards action, so this is the IETF last call to
update the status of X25519MLKEM768 from "Recommended: N" to
"Recommended: Y" in draft-ietf-tls-ecdhe-mlkem. This change would
update the IANA considerations in Section 7.1."

[Ballot comment]
Hi Kris, Panos, Bas, and Douglas,

The new version [1] addresses the DISCUSS in my previous ballot [2].

Thanks also to Viktor for the clarification about how middleboxes out there that don't tolerate larger multi segment ClientHello [3].

Thank you.

Cheers,
Med

[1] https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-tls-ecdhe-mlkem-04

[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/VL7-8UQqQYRKeUT0hBMzpOYWiGk/

[3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/rShY6lfYYwRhViUaDmI1XJ8ctlY/

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to the authors and the WG for their work on this document.

I have a couple of comments to share:

1) The following was published as RFC9847 recently and I think it should be a normative reference. I'll leave this to the responsible AD to cross-check.
[tlsiana]
Salowey, J. A. and S. Turner, "IANA Registry Updates for TLS and DTLS", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis-15, 21 July 2025, .

2) Perhaps ... s/5. Discussion/5. Compliance Considerations ? Or some other title that is apt for the contents?

[Ballot comment]
# IESG review of draft-ietf-tls-ecdhe-mlkem-03

CC @MikeBishop

## Nits

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.

### Typos

#### Section 2, paragraph 1
```
-    in this document may be implemented in a FIPS approved way as
-                                                ^
+    in this document may be implemented in a FIPS-approved way as
+                                                ^
```

### Capitalization of references

Lowercasing `[rfc7748]` when all the other RFC references are all-caps is
confusing some automated systems and looks odd. If there's not a particular
reason for the difference, consider being consistent.

[Ballot discuss]
Hi Kris, Panos, Bas, and Douglas,

Thank you for the effort put into this specification.

I have a straightforward discussion point:

# [hybrid]

This is needed to assess the security analysis in the spec per the following:

CURRENT:
  The same security considerations as those described in [hybrid] apply
  to the approach used by this document. 
  ..
  All groups defined in this document use and generate fixed-length
  public keys, ciphertexts, and shared secrets, which complies with the
  requirements described in Section 6 of [hybrid].

I think we need to list [hybrid] as normative.

Please note that this may require adding [hybrid] as a downref.

[Ballot comment]
# I wonder whether we need to remind the implications on the message size (e.g., a pointer to Section 4 of draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design).

As a side note, how current servers/middleboxes handle ClientHello that don’t fit in a single packet that might be observed if these groups are used? Are there any operational issues to take into account here?

Cheers,
Med

[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke INT AD comments for draft-ietf-tls-ecdhe-mlkem-03
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points/nits.


I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

Note: this ballot comments follow the Markdown syntax of https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/tree/main, i.e., they can be processed by a tool to create github issues.

## COMMENTS (non-blocking)

### Section 2

Please add reference (at least expansion) for the FIPS and NIST acronyms (and of course prefix them with US to avoid any ambiguity).

### Section 5

Who is the "we" in `For this reason we put the ML-KEM shared secret first` ? The authors ? The WG ? The IETF ? Please avoid such ambiguities.

### Section 7

Please add a URI reference to the registry, e.g., https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-parameters/tls-parameters.xhtml#tls-parameters-8

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Joe Salowey for the shepherd write up explanation of why the registry setting is what it is.

Section 4.1, 4.2:  Please check the order and sizes of the client share and server shares.  It appears that they don't match between section 4.1 and 4.2.  For example, for X25519MLKEM768 is 1184 bytes for the MLKEM portion of the client share, and 1088 bytes for the server share.  The order of the items in () for both the SecP/MLKEM groups are opposite between client share and server share (maybe this doesn't matter, but it certainly looks odd). 

Section 5:  I do agree with Gunter that the name of this section is less than descriptive.

Section 5, FIPS compliance:  Does the order that the shared secrets are combined matter?

[Ballot comment]
Section 7, paragraph 0
>    This document requests/registers three new entries to the TLS
>    Supported Groups registry, according to the procedures in Section 6
>    of [tlsiana].  These identifiers are to be used with the final,
>    ratified by NIST, version of ML-KEM which is specified in
>    [NIST-FIPS-203].

Thanks to Dale Worley for his GENART review. One of the questions he asks is about the Recommended value of N. He references the IANA section that says:

    If the "Recommended" column is set to "N", it does not necessarily
    mean that it is flawed; rather, it indicates that the item either
    has not been through the IETF consensus process, has limited
    applicability, or is intended only for specific use cases. [...]

To which the authors' response was that it was discussed on the mailing list and agreed that it should be kept N. However, the document does not seem to have captured what the discussion was and whether the three entries have limited applicability or are intended only for a specific use case, etc.

No reference entries found for these items, which were mentioned in the text:
[RFC7748].

Possible DOWNREF from this Standards Track doc to [NIST-FIPS-203]. If so, the
IESG needs to approve it.

Possible DOWNREF from this Standards Track doc to [NIST-SP-800-227]. If so, the
IESG needs to approve it.

Possible DOWNREF from this Standards Track doc to [KEYAGREEMENT]. If so, the
IESG needs to approve it.

Possible DOWNREF from this Standards Track doc to [NIST-SP-800-135]. If so, the
IESG needs to approve it.

Possible DOWNREF from this Standards Track doc to [NIST-SP-800-56C]. If so, the
IESG needs to approve it.

Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more
guidance:

* Term "traditional"; alternatives might be "classic", "classical", "common",
  "conventional", "customary", "fixed", "habitual", "historic",
  "long-established", "popular", "prescribed", "regular", "rooted",
  "time-honored", "universal", "widely used", "widespread"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

Uncited references: [rfc7748].

Document references draft-ietf-tls-RFC8447bis, but that has been published as
RFC9847.

[Ballot comment]
I should note that I’m not deeply familiar with the technology covered by this draft. While reading it, I found Section 5 (“Discussion”) a bit unclear in terms of its objective. Despite the title, the section doesn’t really read like a discussion.

Would it be possible to either add some additional context to better frame the discussion, or consider renaming the section so that the title more closely matches its content?

Kind Regards,
Gunter Van de Velde,
Routing AD

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-tls-ecdhe-mlkem-03. 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 TLS Supported Groups registry in the Transport Layer Security (TLS) Parameters registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-parameters/

three existing registrations will have their references changed to [ RFC-to-be ] as follows:

Value: 4588 (0x11EC)
Description: X25519MLKEM768
DTLS-OK: Y
Recommended: N
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Comment: Combining X25519 ECDH with ML-KEM-768

Value: 4587 (0x11EB)
Description: SecP256r1MLKEM768
DTLS-OK: Y
Recommended: N
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Comment: Combining secp256r1 ECDH with ML-KEM-768

Value: 4589 (0x11ED)
Description: SecP384r1MLKEM1024
DTLS-OK: Y
Recommended: N
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Comment: Combining secp384r1 ECDH with ML-KEM-1024

Second, also in the TLS Supported Groups registry in the Transport Layer Security (TLS) Parameters registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-parameters/

two existing registrations are to be obsoleted and have the registrations changed as follows:

Value: 25497
Description: X25519Kyber768Draft00 (OBSOLETE)
DTLS-OK: Y
Recommended: D
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Comment: Pre-standards version of Kyber768. Obsoleted by [ RFC-to-be ].

Value: 25498
Description: SecP256r1Kyber768Draft00 (OBSOLETE)
DTLS-OK: Y
Recommended: D
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Comment: Pre-standards version of Kyber768. Obsoleted by [ RFC-to-be ].

As this document updates registrations in registry requiring expert review, we will initiate the required expert review via a separate request. Expert review will need to be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC.

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

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2026-01-20):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-tls-ecdhe-mlkem@ietf.org, joe@salowey.net, paul.wouters@aiven.io, tls-chairs@ietf.org, tls@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Post-quantum hybrid ECDHE-MLKEM Key Agreement for TLSv1.3) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Transport Layer Security WG (tls) to
consider the following document: - 'Post-quantum hybrid ECDHE-MLKEM Key
Agreement for TLSv1.3'
  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 2026-01-20. 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 draft defines three hybrid key agreements for TLS 1.3:
  X25519MLKEM768, SecP256r1MLKEM768, and SecP384r1MLKEM1024 which
  combine a post-quantum KEM with an elliptic curve Diffie-Hellman
  (ECDHE).




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-ecdhe-mlkem/



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

AD note: A related IPR that has been discussed during the lifecycle
of this and many other MLKEM related documents can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/7097/

# 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?

The working group consensus represents a broad agreement to publish the document.

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

The main controversy was about which hybrid groups to mark as Recommended Y in the IANA registry.  Consensus could not be reached on this point so all groups defined in the document remain as Recommended N.  The general consensus of the working group was to move forward with document publication as is.  Updating the registry can be done in a future document if the working group can reach consensus.

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.)

I do not know of any appeal directly related to this document.

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)?

There is significant implementation of the groups in this document.  In particular X25519MLKEM is widely support by browsers including chrome and firefox and by CDNs such as cloud flare.  Vendors such as RedHat and AWS also support the other groups in this document. Many TLS libraries already support or have announced plans to support one or more groups define in this doucment.

## 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 has received review from the IETF cryptographic community involved in TLS and Post-Quantum Crypto algorithms.

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.

NA

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]?

NA

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.

NA

## 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 shepherd believes the document is ready to be handed off to the AD

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 review area that is most relevant is security area. The document has undergone some terminology updates based on review.

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?
This document is proposed standard.  It updates the recommended column of pre-standard code points to D so it needs to be a standards track document.

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.

To the best of my knowledge all disclosures have been filed. No 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.)

There are no known remaining I-D-nits.

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

References are list appropriately

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.

There are no downrefs that are not listed in the registry (RFC 7748 is listed in the 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?

NA

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.

This document does not change the state of any existing RFCs

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]).

All aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are covered in the IANA section.  The referenced registries are clearly identified. No new registries are created.

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.

NA

[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/

# 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?

The working group consensus represents a broad agreement to publish the document.

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

The main controversy was about which hybrid groups to mark as Recommended Y in the IANA registry.  Consensus could not be reached on this point so all groups defined in the document remain as Recommended N.  The general consensus of the working group was to move forward with document publication as is.  Updating the registry can be done in a future document if the working group can reach consensus.

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.)

I do not know of any appeal directly related to this document.

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)?

There is significant implementation of the groups in this document.  In particular X25519MLKEM is widely support by browsers including chrome and firefox and by CDNs such as cloud flare.  Vendors such as RedHat and AWS also support the other groups in this document. Many TLS libraries already support or have announced plans to support one or more groups define in this doucment.

## 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 has received review from the IETF cryptographic community involved in TLS and Post-Quantum Crypto algorithms.

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.

NA

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]?

NA

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.

NA

## 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 shepherd believes the document is ready to be handed off to the AD

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 review area that is most relevant is security area. The document has undergone some terminology updates based on review.

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?
This document is proposed standard.  It updates the recommended column of pre-standard code points to D so it needs to be a standards track document.

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.

To the best of my knowledge all disclosures have been filed. No 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.)

There are no known remaining I-D-nits.

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

References are list appropriately

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.

There are no downrefs that are not listed in the registry (RFC 7748 is listed in the 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?

NA

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.

This document does not change the state of any existing RFCs

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]).

All aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are covered in the IANA section.  The referenced registries are clearly identified. No new registries are created.

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.

NA

[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/

# 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?

The working group consensus represents a broad agreement to publish the document.

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

The main controversy was about which hybrid groups to mark as Recommended Y in the IANA registry.  Consensus could not be reached on this point so all groups defined in the document remain as Recommended N.  The general consensus of the working group was to move forward with document publication as is.  Updating the registry can be done in a future document if the working group can reach consensus.

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.)

I do not know of any appeal directly related to this document.

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)?

There is significant implementation of the groups in this document.  In particular X25519MLKEM is widely support by browsers including chrome and firefox and by CDNs such as cloud flare.  Vendors such as RedHat and AWS also support the other groups in this document. Many TLS libraries already support or have announced plans to support one or more groups define in this doucment.

## 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 has received review from the IETF cryptographic community involved in TLS and Post-Quantum Crypto algorithms.

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.

NA

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]?

NA

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.

NA

## 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 shepherd believes the document is ready to be handed off to the AD

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?



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?
This document is proposed standard.  It updates the recommended column of pre-standard code points to D so it needs to be a standards track document.

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.

To the best of my knowledge all disclosures have been filed. No 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.)

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

References are list appropriately

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.

There are no downrefs that are not listed in the registry (RFC 7748 is listed in the 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?

NA

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.

This document does not change the state of any existing RFCs

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]).

All aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are covered in the IANA section.  The referenced registries are clearly identified. No new registries are created.

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.

NA

[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/