TLS/DTLS 1.3 Profiles for the Internet of Things
draft-ietf-uta-tls13-iot-profile-23

[Ballot comment]
I support Ketan's DISCUSS. Minor corrections follow:

Typo in Section 17.4.4: s/digitialSignature/digitalSignature/

Grammar in Section 22: s/need to careful/needs to carefully/

Also, the very last sentence in Section 22 needs re-worded, but I'm not entirely sure how as I'm not following the second half after the comma ("at certificate-based authentication quantum resistant").

[Ballot comment]
I will echo that PQC algorithms are available for this document.  And additional advice from PQUIP is almost ready for balloting on considerations for running those algorithms on constrained devices.

[Ballot comment]
Roman's COMMENT flags RFC 7452 as apparently unused. I did a full pass
over the body text and agree — I don't see it cited anywhere outside the
reference list. Should come out, or get an in-text citation if one was
intended.

---

On Ketan's reference-classification DISCUSS: I think he's on solid ground
for RFC 7301 and RFC 7250, but RFC 6066 strikes me as a different case.

Section 12:

504 >    Implementations conforming to this profile MUST support ALPN.

A MUST-level requirement to support an extension defined entirely in
RFC 7301 is about as clean a case for "normative" as reference
classification gets. Something similar applies to RFC 7250, given the
MUST-level digital-signature and key-exchange requirements this profile
attaches to raw-public-key support in Section 3.

RFC 6066, though, at least for me, only shows up in MAY-level, illustrative contexts —
the Trusted CA Indication extension and the client certificate URL
mechanism in Section 19 are both explicitly optional, deployment-specific
techniques, not things a compliant implementation has to do. RFC 6066
should stay informative.

---

Section 17.1.3, close to Roman's question about "or stronger" being
unclear:

655 >    The signature MUST be ecdsa-with-SHA256 or stronger [RFC5758].

I checked RFC 5758 directly: it defines ecdsa-with-SHA224/256/384/512 as
four distinct algorithm identifiers but doesn't itself establish a
strength ordering among them — it points out to NIST SP 800-57 for that.
So "or stronger" isn't a term RFC 5758 defines; the ordering is imported
from outside the cited reference. Not wrong, but worth being explicit
that "stronger" means "a SHA-2 variant with a longer digest," since
that's not spelled out here or in RFC 5758 itself.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks very much to Martin Thomson for his ARTART review, and thanks very much to the authors for working with Martin and the other reviewers.

[Ballot discuss]

# Éric Vyncke INT AD comments for draft-ietf-uta-tls13-iot-profile-23
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some blocking DISCUSS points (easy to address), some non-blocking COMMENT points/nits (replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education).

Other thanks to Mohit Sethi, the IoT directorate reviewer (at my request), please consider this recent iot-dir review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-uta-tls13-iot-profile-23-iotdir-telechat-sethi-2026-08-02/

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.

## DISCUSS (blocking)

As noted in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-handling-ballot-positions-20220121/, a DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the points below; I really think that the document would be improved with a change here, but can be convinced otherwise.

### Section 2

Reference to draft-ietf-iotops-7228bis is normative per `IoT device-class terminology follows [RFC7228] and [I-D.ietf-iotops-7228bis]. `

### Section 3

Why not a "MUST" in `For PSK use, endpoints SHOULD use (EC)DHE where possible; see Section 7` ? Or add the guidance required by the IESG statement https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-statement-on-clarifying-the-use-of-bcp-14-key-words/

### Section 7

Does the guidance for the 2nd "SHOULD" also applies to the first one in `For PSK use, endpoints SHOULD use (EC)DHE to achieve forward secrecy; PSK-only SHOULD be avoided unless the application can tolerate the loss of forward secrecy.` ? The text is unclear.

### Section 13

Please provide guidance for the use "SHOULD" in `Implementations in compliance with this specification MUST implement the RSL extension and SHOULD use it to indicate their RAM limitations.`


### Section 17.2.4

Another "SHOULD" without the required guidance in `The Key Usage extension SHOULD be set`.

### Section 17.4.1

Why not a "MUST" in `Environments that are concerned about such traffic analysis SHOULD use an enrollment protocol to migrate` or rephrase it to state that bypassing the SHOULD will expose the exchange to traffic analysis.

### IoT directorate review

While Mohit's IoT-directorate review is fairly recent, please reply to Mohit's review as some points seem important to me:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-uta-tls13-iot-profile-23-iotdir-telechat-sethi-2026-08-02/

[Ballot comment]

## COMMENTS (non-blocking)

### Section 17.1.5

Who is the "we" in `we advise the use of a device management solution` ? The authors ? The WG ? The IETF community ? Please avoid ambiguities.

Possibly also in other places.

Use "Coordinated Universal Time (UTC)" in `Values MUST be expressed in Greenwich Mean Time (Zulu) ` "Zulu" is an aviation term that has little value in an IETF document.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Russ Housley for the GENART review.

** Meta-data and Section 17.  Why is this document updating a profile (RFC7925) for protocols that have already been obsoleted? Why doesn’t this document obsolete RFC7925? 

RFC 9147 (DTLS 1.3) obsoleted RFC6347 (DTLS 1.2)

RFC 8446/9846 (TLS 1.3) obsoleted RFC 5246 (TLS 1.2)

What does it mean to update a profile for an obsoleted protocol?

** Idnits reports:
  == Unused Reference: 'RFC7452' is defined on line 1684, but no explicit
    reference was found in the text

** Section 3.
  TLS/DTLS 1.3 implementations conforming to this profile MUST follow
  the mandatory-to-implement extension requirements in Section 9.2 of
  [RFC9846].  This section summarizes those requirements and the
  additional extension requirements established by this profile.  The
  table does not replace the normative requirements in the referenced
  sections.
…
 

Why is this text needed?  Without it, the default guidance in [RFC9846] would still apply to make these extensions MTI.  All the text appears to say here is affirming that the mandate in RFC9846 continues to apply.

** Section 4.  It isn’t clear what IOT profiling is being done with this text.  The “standard” RFC9846 behavior of TLS does not appear to be enhanced.  Can this text be removed?

** Section 5.  Same comment as for Section 4.  The text appears to be restating RFC9846 mechanisms without profiling.  Can this text be removed?

** Section 6.  Same comment as for Section 4 and 5.  Can this text be removed?

** Section 11
  TLS 1.3 requires implementations to support the Server Name
  Indication (SNI) extension when used with applications capable of
  using it (Section 9.2 of [RFC9846]).  This profile does not change
  that requirement.

How could a profile “change that requirement” if the base spec requires support?

** Section 16.  I didn’t understand the purpose of this section.  If this section didn’t exist, the guidance from Appendix F.5 of RFC9846 will already mandate that “Application protocols MUST NOT use 0-RTT data without a profile”.  However, this document seems to repeat this restriction by saying “For any application protocol, 0-RTT MUST NOT be used unless a protocol-specific profile exists.”

Further, this text, “At the time of writing, no such profile has been defined for CoAP  [CoAP].  Therefore, 0-RTT MUST NOT be used by CoAP applications.”, again restates what would have been true whether it was written or not.

Per “No specific recommendations are given for non-IETF IoT protocols such as MQTT (Message Queuing Telemetry Transport)”, how would this document even specify recommendation for non-IETF profiles?

** Section 17.1.3.
  The signature MUST be ecdsa-with-SHA256 or stronger [RFC5758].

What is “or stronger” in this context is it ecdsa-with-SHA384 or ecdsa-with-SHA512, or suggesting an entire different signature algorithm family?

** Section 18.  How is this text profiling TLS/DTLS?  What is their relationship to IoT?

** Section 19.  The normative guidance for the TLS/DTLS profile is not clear in this section.

** Section 21.  How is this text profiling TLS/DTLS?  What is their relationship to IoT?

** Section 22.

22.  Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) Considerations

  This section is informational and provides deployment guidance only;
  it does not add normative requirements to this profile.

I don’t understand the purpose of this text.  There are many parts of this document which do not place normative requirements on the profile.

** Section 24.
    Deployments considering such cipher suites, such as
  defined in [RFC9150], need application-specific analysis outside the
  scope of this document.

This is restating guidance that is true for the entire TLS/DTLS ecosystem.

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

I would like to discuss about three documents that are categorized
as informative but perhaps should be normative. Note: I may be wrong here since
I am not a subject matter expert and would be happy to be corrected.

Section 12

502   The Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) extension [RFC7301]
503   is independent of the credential type used for TLS authentication.

505   Implementations conforming to this profile MUST support ALPN.

RFC 7301 is needed to implement the required ALPN support. Therefore, it is
a Normative References?

Section 3

263   This profile considers three authentication modes for IoT devices:
264   (1) certificate-based, (2) raw public key-based and (3) external PSK-
265   based.  TLS/DTLS 1.3 supports both PSK-only and PSK with (EC)DHE key

Since RFC 7250 defines the certificate types, should it not be a normative
reference? Or have I got it wrong?

Section 19

1174   installed.  In these cases, the peer MAY use the Trusted CA
1175   Indication extension [RFC6066] to help the sender select an
1176   appropriate certificate chain.  During trust-anchor updates,

1191   *  The client certificate URL mechanism defined in Section 5 of
1192       [RFC6066] can replace client certificates in the handshake with
1193       references to external certificate objects.  When applications

Even if it is optional, it seems like RFC 6066 is referenced normatively?

[Ballot comment]
Please find below one non-blocking comment also related to references :-)

The draft reference draft-ietf-tls-dtls-rrc (version 20) is stale.
It was replaced by rfc9853

The draft reference draft-ietf-tls-8773bis (version 13) is stale.
It was replaced by rfc9973

RFC7452 is an unused reference

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for addressing previous TSV-ART review comments from Martin Duke!

These are minor editorial suggestions:

In “are not applicable to the new version of TLS/DTLS anymore.” - I expect “anymore” can be deleted?

Maybe this could be more easily worded: “  The requirement in Section 4.4.2 of [RFC7925] to only use EUI-64 for end entity certificates as a subject field is lifted.” perhaps moving or rephrasing “is lifted”?

Best wishes,
Gorry

Request for IETF Last Call review by TSVART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Martin Duke. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.

Request for IETF Last Call review by ARTART Completed: Not Ready. Reviewer: Martin Thomson. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.

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

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: debcooley1@gmail.com, draft-ietf-uta-tls13-iot-profile@ietf.org, renzoefra@gmail.com, uta-chairs@ietf.org, uta@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (TLS/DTLS 1.3 Profiles for the Internet of Things) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Using TLS in Applications WG (uta)
to consider the following document: - 'TLS/DTLS 1.3 Profiles for the Internet
of Things'
  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.

Abstract


  RFC 7925 offers guidance to developers on using TLS/DTLS 1.2 for
  Internet of Things (IoT) devices with resource constraints.  This
  document is a companion to RFC 7925, defining TLS/DTLS 1.3 profiles
  for IoT devices.  Additionally, it updates RFC 7925 with respect to
  the X.509 certificate profile and ciphersuite requirements.

Discussion Venues

  This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

  Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
  https://github.com/thomas-fossati/draft-tls13-iot.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-uta-tls13-iot-profile/



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

# 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?

About Adoption/History:
Yes, it reached broad (proportional to the active users) agreement.

Proposed by Hannes and Thomas originally OCT-2018; early support with reviews from: Barry Leiba, and Loganaden Velvindron (and comment from John Mattsson). CFA on 05-2025 Supported in ML by Eric Rescorla , Martin Thomson, and Loganaden Velvindron.  Michel Richardson supported and actively contributed to the draft in 04-2022, later joined as co-author in v-08 OCT-2023.
WGLC for draft-ietf-uta-tls13-iot-profile-13 received support from
Marco Tiloca (+review that led to version 14), Henk Birkholz, Rich Salz.

Daniel Migault did an extensive review of draft-ietf-uta-tls13-iot-profile-14, which led to v17 on 18th October 2025. Then, Daniel M. gave an extensive reply on 7th November 2025, which led to v18 on 4th Feb 2026, acknowledged by Daniel. v19 Daniel has been included as author of the document.


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


None so far.

Extract from Reply from Michael Richardson  [https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/0F71htIZKCwP1b96bdjOt_HrwKM/]
"As I recall, we made a conscious decision not to make any quantum-safe
recommendations."


3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

N/A. It is a profile/configuration document for TLS 1.3.


## 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.

Interacts with TLS WG.
Further review in the form of IETF LC is sufficient.


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?

The document is ~30 pages, well structured, clear and concise. (Of course many sections rely on background from [RFC7925], this document being an update of RFC7925, that document needs to be read before).

Introduction motivates very well the need for the TLS 1.3 update (and key differences with TLS 1.2 profile). Section 17 "Certificate Profile” (9 pages, around 30%) accounts for most of the document, understandably.

This shepherd has sent a review the 16/Feb/2026 to the ML with some nits, here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/apzujMfWJhuR8s3mlHCtXUmEGkI/


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 early directorate reviews were performed. The review area that is most relevant is security area. Daniel Migault gave extensive feedback on TLS-related topics.


11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard. Correct status, this document updates RFC 7925 (Proposed Standard) defining TLS/DTLS 1.3 profiles for IoT devices. This is reflected on the Datatracker.

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.

All authors have confirmed publicly that they are not aware of any related IPRs:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/ItccUnHu9htDLsmi79W1I_BJJOA/

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: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/ItccUnHu9htDLsmi79W1I_BJJOA/

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.)

A) The document passes I-D nits with
Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 2 comments (--).
Warning:
== There are 4 instances of lines with non-ascii characters in the document.
Relevant -- comment:
Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
  -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4210
    (Obsoleted by RFC 9810)
---------

B) Review of "Content guidelines"
Regarding the content guidelines, the draft is appropriately named. All required sections are present in the draft. The Optional Privacy Considerations section is not present. Neither the Implementation Status section.

Language and style: abbreviations appropriately expanded (but one, were noted on this shepherd’s review), does not misrepresent its status, adheres to BCP 14, does not use non-inclusive language, and does not seem to contain stale text.
Protocol checklist OK-N/A.


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

All references seem appropriately categorized.

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 (but one) normative references are RFCs. The remaining is I-D.ietf-tls-dtls-rrc (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. (all are standard’s track)


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.
( One normative reference is draft-ietf-tls-dtls-rrc but it is currently in AUTH48 state, so all ok.)


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 updates RFC 7925.
(This is reflected and discussed in abstract. Not on the intro but in Section 17, where the proper update for the profile defined in RFC 7925 is done, the section is explicit about this )


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]).

N/A.

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/

# 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?

About Adoption/History:
Yes, it reached broad (proportional to the active users) agreement.

Proposed by Hannes and Thomas originally OCT-2018; early support with reviews from: Barry Leiba, and Loganaden Velvindron (and comment from John Mattsson). CFA on 05-2025 Supported in ML by Eric Rescorla , Martin Thomson, and Loganaden Velvindron.  Michel Richardson supported and actively contributed to the draft in 04-2022, later joined as co-author in v-08 OCT-2023.
WGLC for draft-ietf-uta-tls13-iot-profile-13 received support from
Marco Tiloca (+review that led to version 14), Henk Birkholz, Rich Salz.

Daniel Migault did an extensive review of draft-ietf-uta-tls13-iot-profile-14, which led to v17 on 18th October 2025. Then, Daniel M. gave an extensive reply on 7th November 2025, which led to v18 on 4th Feb 2026, acknowledged by Daniel.


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


None so far.

Extract from Reply from Michael Richardson  [https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/0F71htIZKCwP1b96bdjOt_HrwKM/]
"As I recall, we made a conscious decision not to make any quantum-safe
recommendations."


3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

N/A. It is a profile/configuration document for TLS 1.3.


## 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.

Interacts with TLS WG.
Further review in the form of IETF LC is sufficient.


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?

The document is ~30 pages, well structured, clear and concise. (Of course many sections rely on background from [RFC7925], this document being an update of RFC7925, that document needs to be read before).

Introduction motivates very well the need for the TLS 1.3 update (and key differences with TLS 1.2 profile). Section 17 "Certificate Profile” (9 pages, around 30%) accounts for most of the document, understandably.

This shepherd has sent a review the 16/Feb/2026 to the ML with some nits, here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/apzujMfWJhuR8s3mlHCtXUmEGkI/


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 early directorate reviews were performed. The review area that is most relevant is security area. Daniel Migault gave extensive feedback on TLS-related topics.


11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard. Correct status, this document updates RFC 7925 (Proposed Standard) defining TLS/DTLS 1.3 profiles for IoT devices. This is reflected on the Datatracker.

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.

All authors have confirmed publicly that they are not aware of any related IPRs:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/ItccUnHu9htDLsmi79W1I_BJJOA/

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: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/ItccUnHu9htDLsmi79W1I_BJJOA/

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.)

A) The document passes I-D nits with
Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 2 comments (--).
Warning:
== There are 4 instances of lines with non-ascii characters in the document.
Relevant -- comment:
Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
  -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4210
    (Obsoleted by RFC 9810)
---------

B) Review of "Content guidelines"
Regarding the content guidelines, the draft is appropriately named. All required sections are present in the draft. The Optional Privacy Considerations section is not present. Neither the Implementation Status section.

Language and style: abbreviations appropriately expanded (but one, were noted on this shepherd’s review), does not misrepresent its status, adheres to BCP 14, does not use non-inclusive language, and does not seem to contain stale text.
Protocol checklist OK-N/A.


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

All references seem appropriately categorized.

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 (but one) normative references are RFCs. The remaining is I-D.ietf-tls-dtls-rrc (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. (all are standard’s track)


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.
( One normative reference is draft-ietf-tls-dtls-rrc but it is currently in AUTH48 state, so all ok.)


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 updates RFC 7925.
(This is reflected and discussed in abstract. Not on the intro but in Section 17, where the proper update for the profile defined in RFC 7925 is done, the section is explicit about this )


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]).

N/A.

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/

# 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?

About Adoption/History:
Yes, it reached broad (proportional to the active users) agreement.

Proposed by Hannes and Thomas originally OCT-2018; early support with reviews from: Barry Leiba, and Loganaden Velvindron (and comment from John Mattsson). CFA on 05-2025 Supported in ML by Eric Rescorla , Martin Thomson, and Loganaden Velvindron.  Michel Richardson supported and actively contributed to the draft in 04-2022, later joined as co-author in v-08 OCT-2023.
WGLC for draft-ietf-uta-tls13-iot-profile-13 received support from
Marco Tiloca (+review that led to version 14), Henk Birkholz, Rich Salz.

Daniel Migault did an extensive review of draft-ietf-uta-tls13-iot-profile-14, which led to v17 on 18th October 2025. Then, Daniel M. gave an extensive reply on 7th November 2025, which led to v18 on 4th Feb 2026, acknowledged by Daniel.


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


None so far.

Extract from Reply from Michael Richardson  [https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/0F71htIZKCwP1b96bdjOt_HrwKM/]
"As I recall, we made a conscious decision not to make any quantum-safe
recommendations."


3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

N/A. It is a profile/configuration document for TLS 1.3.


## 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.

Interacts with TLS WG.
Further review in the form of IETF LC is sufficient.


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?

The document is ~30 pages, well structured, clear and concise. (Of course many sections rely on background from [RFC7925], this document being an update of RFC7925, that document needs to be read before).

Introduction motivates very well the need for the TLS 1.3 update (and key differences with TLS 1.2 profile). Section 17 "Certificate Profile” (9 pages, around 30%) accounts for most of the document, understandably.

This shepherd has sent a review the 16/Feb/2026 to the ML with some nits, here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/apzujMfWJhuR8s3mlHCtXUmEGkI/


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 early directorate reviews were performed. The review area that is most relevant is security area. Daniel Migault gave extensive feedback on TLS-related topics.


11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard. Correct status, this document updates RFC 7925 (Proposed Standard) defining TLS/DTLS 1.3 profiles for IoT devices. This is reflected on the Datatracker.

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.

All authors have confirmed publicly that they are not aware of any related IPRs:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/ItccUnHu9htDLsmi79W1I_BJJOA/

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: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/ItccUnHu9htDLsmi79W1I_BJJOA/

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.)

A) The document passes I-D nits with
Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 2 comments (--).
Warning:
== There are 4 instances of lines with non-ascii characters in the document.
Relevant -- comment:
Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
  -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4210
    (Obsoleted by RFC 9810)
---------

B) Review of "Content guidelines"
Regarding the content guidelines, the draft is appropriately named. All required sections are present in the draft. The Optional Privacy Considerations section is not present. Neither the Implementation Status section.

Language and style: abbreviations appropriately expanded (but one, were noted on this shepherd’s review), does not misrepresent its status, adheres to BCP 14, does not use non-inclusive language, and does not seem to contain stale text.
Protocol checklist OK-N/A.


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

All references seem appropriately categorized.

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 (but one) normative references are RFCs. The remaining is I-D.ietf-tls-dtls-rrc (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. (all are standard’s track)


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.
( One normative reference is draft-ietf-tls-dtls-rrc but it is currently in AUTH48 state, so all ok.)


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 updates RFC 7925.
(This is reflected and discussed in abstract. Not on the intro but in Section 17, where the proper update for the profile defined in RFC 7925 is done, the section is explicit about this )


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]).

N/A.

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/

# 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?

Yes, it reached broad (proportional to the active users) agreement.

Proposed by Hannes and Thomas originally OCT-2018; early support with reviews from: Barry Leiba, and Loganaden Velvindron (and comment from John Mattsson). CFA on 05-2025 Supported in ML by Eric Rescorla , Martin Thomson, and Loganaden Velvindron.  Michel Richardson supported and actively contributed to the draft in 04-2022, later joined as co-author in v-08 OCT-2023.

WGLC for draft-ietf-uta-tls13-iot-profile-13 received support from
Marco Tiloca (+review that led to version 14), Henk Birkholz, Rich Salz.
Daniel Migault did an extensive review of draft-ietf-uta-tls13-iot-profile-14, which led to v17.
As of 20 OCT 2025 Waiting ACK from Daniel M.



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


None so far.

Extract from Reply from Michael Richardson  [https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/0F71htIZKCwP1b96bdjOt_HrwKM/]
"As I recall, we made a conscious decision not to make any quantum-safe
recommendations."


3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

N/A. It is a profile/configuration document for TLS 1.3.


## 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.

Interacts with TLS WG.
Further review in the form of IETF LC is sufficient.


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?

TODO: Proper, even if swift, review will be done soon.
The document is on the shorter side (20 pages), well structured, clear and concise. (Some sections rely on background from [RFC7925] → D’Oh myself, well it is an update, so RFC7925 needs to be read before).
(Comment 2024: Needs to fix some Issues from Git. Also Section 15 is like half the document, is that ok/desirable?. )



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?

TODO


11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard. Correct status, this document updates RFC 7925 (Proposed Standard) defining TLS/DTLS 1.3 profiles for IoT devices. This is reflected on the Datatracker.

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.

All authors have confirmed publicly that they are not aware of any related IPRs:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/ItccUnHu9htDLsmi79W1I_BJJOA/

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: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/ItccUnHu9htDLsmi79W1I_BJJOA/

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.)

TODO

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

TODO

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 RFCs.
**Attention RFC8449 and TLS13 refs to the same RFC**


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.

TODO: No? (check)

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.

This document updates RFC 7925.


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]).

N/A.

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/

# 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?

Yes, it reached broad (proportional to the active users) agreement.

Proposed by Hannes and Thomas originally OCT-2018; early support with reviews from: Barry Leiba, and Loganaden Velvindron (and comment from John Mattsson). CFA on 05-2025 Supported in ML by Eric Rescorla , Martin Thomson, and Loganaden Velvindron.  Michel Richardson supported and actively contributed to the draft in 04-2022, later joined as co-author in v-08 OCT-2023.

WGLC for draft-ietf-uta-tls13-iot-profile-13 received support from
Marco Tiloca (+review that led to version 14), Henk Birkholz, Rich Salz.
Daniel Migault did an extensive review of draft-ietf-uta-tls13-iot-profile-14, which led to v17.
As of 20 OCT 2025 Waiting ACK from Daniel M.



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


None so far.

Extract from Reply from Michael Richardson  [https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/0F71htIZKCwP1b96bdjOt_HrwKM/]
"As I recall, we made a conscious decision not to make any quantum-safe
recommendations."


3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

N/A. It is a profile/configuration document for TLS 1.3.


## 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.

Interacts with TLS WG.
Further review in the form of IETF LC is sufficient.


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?

TODO: Proper, even if swift, review will be done soon.
The document is on the shorter side (20 pages), well structured, clear and concise. (Some sections rely on background from [RFC7925] → D’Oh myself, well it is an update, so RFC7925 needs to be read before).
(Comment 2024: Needs to fix some Issues from Git. Also Section 15 is like half the document, is that ok/desirable?. )



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?

TODO


11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard. Correct status, this document updates RFC 7925 (Proposed Standard) defining TLS/DTLS 1.3 profiles for IoT devices. This is reflected on the Datatracker.

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.

All authors have confirmed publicly that they are not aware of any related IPRs:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/ItccUnHu9htDLsmi79W1I_BJJOA/

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: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/ItccUnHu9htDLsmi79W1I_BJJOA/

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.)

TODO

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

TODO

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 RFCs.
**Attention RFC8449 and TLS13 refs to the same RFC**


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.

TODO: No? (check)

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.

This document updates RFC 7925.


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]).

N/A.

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/

# 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?

TODO: TO UPDATE With the WGLC.

About Adoption/History:
It reached broad? (proportional to the active users?) agreement.
Proposed by Hannes and Thomas originally OCT-2018; early support with reviews from: Barry Leiba, and Loganaden Velvindron (and comment from John Mattsson). CFA on 05-2025 Supported in ML by Eric Rescorla , Martin Thomson, and Loganaden Velvindron.  Michel Richardson supported and actively contributed to the draft in 04-2022, later joined as co-author in v-08 OCT-2023.


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


None so far.

Extract from Reply from Michael Richardson  [https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/0F71htIZKCwP1b96bdjOt_HrwKM/]
"As I recall, we made a conscious decision not to make any quantum-safe
recommendations."


3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

N/A. It is a profile/configuration document for TLS 1.3.


## 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.

Interacts with TLS WG.
TODO: check if possible review from TLS WG. Or maybe add this phrase "Further review in the form of IETF LC is sufficient."

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?

TODO: Proper, even if swift, review will be done soon.
The document is on the shorter side (20 pages), well structured, clear and concise. (Some sections rely on background from [RFC7925] → D’Oh myself, well it is an update, so RFC7925 needs to be read before).
(Comment 2024: Needs to fix some Issues from Git. Also Section 15 is like half the document, is that ok/desirable?. )



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?

TODO


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?

**N/A -- ASK!! TODO**

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.

All authors have confirmed publicly that they are not aware of any related IPRs:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/ItccUnHu9htDLsmi79W1I_BJJOA/

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: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/ItccUnHu9htDLsmi79W1I_BJJOA/

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.)

TODO

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

TODO

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 RFCs.
**Attention RFC8449 and TLS13 refs to the same RFC**


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.

TODO: No? (check)

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.

This document updates RFC 7925.


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]).

N/A.

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/