## Document History
1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
There was broad agreement to adopt this I-D; when we used to show of hands
tool, there were roughly 40 people in favor of adopting the I-D. As far as
WGLC participation goes, there were only a few people who spoke up despite
numerous requests for additional signs of support; however, I am comfortable
progressing this to the AD (and IESG).
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
The biggest point of controversy, if you want to call it that, is whether to
adopt the I-D at all. I am pretty sure that after ripping RSA signatures out of
TLS 1.3 nobody wanted to add them back. In fact, I seem to remember groans as
this I-D was presented at IETF 118, but people understood and accepted the
reality of the situation as discussed in the I-D.
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.)
There has been no threat of 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)?
Implementations: Chromium/BoringSSL and Edge browsers; Web server:
IIS/HTTP.SYS; HTTP client libraries WinInet, WinHTTP, .NET.
## Additional Reviews
5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.
No.
6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
N/A
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]?
N/A
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.
N/A
## 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 this I-D is well baked. Frankly, there’s not much to cipher suite I-Ds.
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?
ART N/A
INT N/A
OPS N/A
RTG N/A
SEC -> Always worth another set of eyes!
TSV N/A
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?
The Standards track was chosen because we are putting an algorithm back that
was purposely removed from TLS 1.3. Could it have gone informational … maybe.
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 Shepherd has confirmed that the authors have made all the necessary
disclosures.
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.
The authors have acknowledged their willingness to be listed as authors.
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.)
I-D nits complains about possible DOWNREFs for 5 of the normative references.
One is to a NIST FIPS Pub, 2 are to TCG standards, and one is to an ITU IS -
these are all fine. One potential DOWNREF is to RFC 8017, but it is already in
the DOWNREF registry.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
No.
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
N/A
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.
N/A
18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear
state? If so, what is the plan for their completion?
No.
19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those
RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is
discussed.
No.
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]).
As Shepherd, I specifically asked on the list whether the Recommended column
should be “N” or “D”. The consensus was that it be “N”, as it is in the I-D.
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.
N/A
[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/