I-D list for CBOR Object Signing and Encryption RSS Feed

CBOR Encoded X.509 Certificates (C509 Certificates)

2026-04-15T17:44:40.902449+00:00

IANA Experts State changed to Issues identified from Reviews assigned

CBOR Encoded X.509 Certificates (C509 Certificates)

2026-04-14T03:10:15.057530+00:00

Telechat date has been changed to 2026-04-30 (Previous date was 2026-04-16)

CBOR Encoded X.509 Certificates (C509 Certificates)

2026-04-14T03:10:15.048073+00:00

Changed action holders to Christopher Inacio (IESG state changed)

CBOR Encoded X.509 Certificates (C509 Certificates)

2026-04-14T03:10:15.003594+00:00

IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation - Defer from IESG Evaluation

CBOR Encoded X.509 Certificates (C509 Certificates)

2026-04-13T12:21:15.536583+00:00

Request for Telechat review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Corey Bonnell. Sent review to list.

CBOR Encoded X.509 Certificates (C509 Certificates)

2026-04-13T11:52:06.645444+00:00

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jim Guichard

CBOR Encoded X.509 Certificates (C509 Certificates)

2026-04-10T18:04:42.504696+00:00

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Andy Newton

CBOR Encoded X.509 Certificates (C509 Certificates)

2026-04-10T14:03:45.251999+00:00

[Ballot discuss]

# Éric Vyncke INT AD comments for draft-ietf-cose-cbor-encoded-cert-17
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document.

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

Special thanks to Ivaylo Petrov for the shepherd's write-up including the WG consensus *BUT* it lacks the justification of the intended status.

Other thanks to Ted Lemon, the DNS directorate reviewer:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-cose-cbor-encoded-cert-17-dnsdir-telechat-lemon-2026-03-30/ (and I have read the previous email threads with the authors)

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 3.3

About "IpAddrBlocks", the whole text is a little unclear to me to be honest, so I may have misread the specification BUT the text `It should be noted that using address differences for compactness prevents encoding an address range larger than 2**64 - 1 corresponding to the CBOR integer max value.` seems really a bad choice for IPv6 addresses as the usual prefix size if 64-bit long. I.e., the encoding cannot cope with 2001:db8::/63. There are no examples in the appendix about this encoding, and this does not help the reader.

Also very unclear to me (missing references and how to use): `IPAddressFamily = (AFI: uint, SAFI: uint / null, IPAddressChoice)`

The text `as specified in [I-D.ietf-lamps-macaddress-on]` makes the reference normative.

CBOR Encoded X.509 Certificates (C509 Certificates)

2026-04-10T14:03:45.251978+00:00

[Ballot comment]

## COMMENTS (non-blocking)

### Section 1

Please add a reference to `IEEE 802.1AR (DevID)`.

Also add references to `C509 is deployed in, e.g.,...``

### Section 3.1.8 (and others)

What does `Not supported.` mean in this case ? Should the text be explicit and state that if this field exist in the X.509 then no C509 can be generated? (just to be clear)

### Section 3.3

About "Name Constraints" s/where the last octet indicates the number of bits in the *netmask*/where the last octet indicates the number of bits in the *prefix*/

About "IPAddrBlocks", just wondering why not using the 'number of used octets' as it is closer to the usual CIDR/IPv6 prefix notation in `Each AddressPrefix is encoded as a CBOR bytes string (without the unused bits octet) followed by the number of unused bits encoded as a CBOR uint` ?

`KeyIdentifier SHOULD be composed of the leftmost 160-bits of the SHA-256 hash of the CBOR encoded subjectPublicKey. Other methods of generating unique numbers can be used.` why a SHOULD as other methods can be used ? This sentence does not seem to follow https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-statement-on-clarifying-the-use-of-bcp-14-key-words/.

### Section 9

Suggest adding informative reference to the newly created IANA registries *AND* updated existing registries.

Somehow like Med Boucadair, I am puzzled by the last paragraph as it is confusing at the best while trying to paraphrase RFC 8126. Let's rather delete it.

### Section A.3.1

Please avoid using real FQDN (e.g., `sni.cloudflaressl.com`) in IETF documents, rather use "example.org"

CBOR Encoded X.509 Certificates (C509 Certificates)

2026-04-10T14:03:45.251899+00:00

[Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke

CBOR Encoded X.509 Certificates (C509 Certificates)

2026-04-10T10:54:45.845933+00:00

[Ballot discuss]
Hi John, Göran, Shahid, Joel, and Martin,

Many thanks for the well-written document. Excellent work.

I have two points to check. I flagged some few nits and minor edits that I will send to the authors in a PR.

# IETF Review with Expert Review

CURRENT:
All assignments according to "IETF Review with Expert Review" are made on a "IETF Review" basis per {{Section 4.8 of RFC8126}} with "Expert Review" additionally required per {{Section 4.5 of RFC8126}}.

and

the registration procedure is "IETF Review with Expert Review".

I remember that Carsten edited draft-bormann-gendispatch-with-expert-review, but do we have a stable reference where such policy is defined?

# The WG may be closed: not sure how this guidance will age

CURRENT:
In addition, working group chairs are encouraged to consult the expert(s) early during the process outlined in Section 3.1 of {{RFC7120}}.

CBOR Encoded X.509 Certificates (C509 Certificates)

2026-04-10T10:54:45.845910+00:00

[Ballot comment]
# Is this already deployed there or these are deployment targets?

CURRENT:
C509 is deployed in, e.g., in-vehicle and vehicle-to-cloud communication, Uncrewed Aircraft Systems (UAS), and Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS)

“is deployed” won’t age well in an RFC, btw.

# Please consider adding a reference

CURRENT :

the CBOR encoding can in many cases reduce the size of RFC7925 profiled certificates by over 50%.

# Any reason why this is repeated here?

CURRENT:
The procedure for early IANA allocation of "standards track code points" defined in {{RFC7120}} also applies.

Cheers,
Med

CBOR Encoded X.509 Certificates (C509 Certificates)

2026-04-10T10:54:45.845832+00:00

[Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Mohamed Boucadair

AES-CMAC for COSE

2026-04-09T17:47:20.027781+00:00

New version available: draft-sipos-cose-cmac-02.txt

AES-CMAC for COSE

2026-04-09T17:47:20.025195+00:00

New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Brian Sipos)

AES-CMAC for COSE

2026-04-09T17:47:19.969024+00:00

Uploaded new revision

CBOR Encoded X.509 Certificates (C509 Certificates)

2026-04-08T11:06:00.377411+00:00

[Ballot comment]
Many thanks for the write-up. Appreciated.

My observation is that while the shepherd writeup claims nothing noteworthy when running idnits, but when i run idnits (https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-cose-cbor-encoded-cert-17.txt) i end up with a long laundry list of observations. Maybe worthwhile to run through the list and explain why they are deemed not meaningful/relevant and add this context in the write-up?

One of those idnits observations is that there may only be v4 examples and no v6 examples?

G/

CBOR Encoded X.509 Certificates (C509 Certificates)

2026-04-08T11:06:00.377328+00:00

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gunter Van de Velde

Use of Hybrid Public-Key Encryption (HPKE) with CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)

2026-04-07T18:04:16.457731+00:00

# 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?

This document had broad discussion with a considerable number of people participating and providing input. At the end a number of people confirmed they believe the document is ready for publication.

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

There were many discussions - particularly over handling of the combinatory explosion when each triplet of is given a code point and concerns about implementing all of the available options for constrained devices, which took a long time to resolve, but in the end I believe everyone had their concerns addressed.

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)?

During IETF 125 the authors shared that there are 3 independent implementations that were used to validate the examples.

## 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 is related to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-jose-hpke-encrypt/. The WGLC of both documents asked reviewers to look at both, which appeared to have been the case.

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.

Such reviews were not necessary.

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]?

There is no YANG module.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

In sec 3.3.1 there is a CDDL structure. It is trivial, but I am not aware of automated checks performed on it.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
Reviews?

In my opinion the draft does not have any of the listed SEC issues.

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 document is marked as “Proposed Standard”. Being in the standard track makes sense and it is not ready for “Internet Standard”, thus this status seems most reasonable.

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.

Yes, all authors have confirmed they are not aware of relevant IPR.

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.)

- In the PDF version of the document, there are problems with the test vectors in Appendix C (many are missing compared with the TXT version). I am informing the authors about that and they will hopefully fix it in a new version.
- Implementation status section could be added.

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?

There are no such references.

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.

RFC8937 is missing from the downref list. The others draft-ietf-hpke-hpke/RFC9180, RFC9053 are in the downrefs list.

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

All normative references, except for draft-ietf-hpke-hpke-03 are published RFCs. That one is in state publication requested.

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 will not update 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]).

The document clearly identifies its requests to IANA for new COSE Algorithms Registry and COSE Header Parameter registrations. These requests are necessary and minimal.

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

There are no new IANA registries. In sec. 4 there is a new recommendation for the designated expert regarding IANA COSE algorithm registry when HPKE ciphersuites are registered.

[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/

Use of Hybrid Public-Key Encryption (HPKE) with CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)

2026-04-07T18:04:16.443757+00:00

IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from In WG Last Call

Use of Hybrid Public-Key Encryption (HPKE) with CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)

2026-04-07T18:04:16.396919+00:00

IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists

Use of Hybrid Public-Key Encryption (HPKE) with CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)

2026-04-07T18:04:16.390652+00:00

Changed action holders to Christopher Inacio (IESG state changed)

Use of Hybrid Public-Key Encryption (HPKE) with CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)

2026-04-07T18:04:16.324742+00:00

Responsible AD changed to Christopher Inacio

Use of Hybrid Public-Key Encryption (HPKE) with CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)

2026-04-07T18:04:16.273077+00:00

Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested

Use of Hybrid Public-Key Encryption (HPKE) with CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)

2026-04-07T18:03:57.003814+00:00

Notification list changed to ivaylopetrov@google.com because the document shepherd was set

Use of Hybrid Public-Key Encryption (HPKE) with CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)

2026-04-07T18:03:57.003814+00:00

Document shepherd changed to Ivaylo Petrov

Use of Hybrid Public-Key Encryption (HPKE) with CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)

2026-04-07T18:03:19.117906+00:00

Use of Hybrid Public-Key Encryption (HPKE) with CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)

2026-04-07T17:56:08.410027+00:00

New version available: draft-ietf-cose-hpke-25.txt

Use of Hybrid Public-Key Encryption (HPKE) with CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)

2026-04-07T17:56:08.407119+00:00

New version approved

Use of Hybrid Public-Key Encryption (HPKE) with CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)

2026-04-07T17:50:27.772141+00:00

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Ajitomi, Daisuke" , Hannes Tschofenig , Laurence Lundblade , Michael Jones , Orie Steele , cose-chairs@ietf.org

Use of Hybrid Public-Key Encryption (HPKE) with CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)

2026-04-07T17:50:27.413840+00:00

Uploaded new revision

Use of Hybrid Public-Key Encryption (HPKE) with CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)

2026-04-06T07:52:10.240720+00:00

# 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?

This document had broad discussion with a considerable number of people participating and providing input. At the end a number of people confirmed they believe the document is ready for publication.

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

There were many discussions - particularly over handling of the combinatory explosion when each triplet of is given a code point and concerns about implementing all of the available options for constrained devices, which took a long time to resolve, but in the end I believe everyone had their concerns addressed.

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)?

During IETF 125 the authors shared that there are 3 independent implementations that were used to validate the examples.

## 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 is related to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-jose-hpke-encrypt/. The WGLC of both documents asked reviewers to look at both, which appeared to have been the case.

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.

Such reviews were not necessary.

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]?

There is no YANG module.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

In sec 3.3.1 there is a CDDL like structure, which is not explicitly called CDDL. It is trivial and has the same style as RFC9052.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
Reviews?

I believe adding RFC9052 to the security considerations section would be beneficial in connection to the normative text around protected headers in sec 7.2.2.

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 document is marked as “Proposed Standard”. Being in the standard track makes sense and it is not ready for “Internet Standard”, thus this status seems most reasonable.

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.

Yes, all authors have confirmed they are not aware of relevant IPR.

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.)

- In the PDF version of the document, there are problems with the test vectors in Appendix C (many are missing compared with the TXT version). I am informing the authors about that and they will hopefully fix it in a new version.
- Implementation status section could be added.

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

I believe RFC8937 should be a normative reference due to its usage in the security considerations. That would constitute a downward reference that is not listed in the DOWNREF registry.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
References?

There are no such references.

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.

All downrefs are listed (draft-ietf-hpke-hpke/RFC9180, RFC9053).

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

All normative references, except for draft-ietf-hpke-hpke-03 are published RFCs. That one is in state publication requested.

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 will not update 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]).

The document clearly identifies its requests to IANA for new COSE Algorithms Registry and COSE Header Parameter registrations. These requests are necessary and minimal.

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

There are no new IANA registries. In sec. 4 there is a new recommendation for the designated expert regarding IANA COSE algorithm registry when HPKE ciphersuites are registered.

[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/