Key Management for Group Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments (Group OSCORE) Using Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE)
draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-oscore-21

[Ballot comment]
Thank you so much for addressing my discuss.  You explanations and proposed changes were detailed and thorough (and I'm sure it took a great deal of time).

[Ballot comment]
I have reviewed this I-D from the INT point of view and found nothing to comment on.

Nevertheless, there are several `SHOULD` _without_ the required additional guidance, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-statement-on-clarifying-the-use-of-bcp-14-key-words/.

Thanks for the nice SVG graphics ;-)

[Ballot comment]
# IESG review of draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-oscore-19

CC @MikeBishop

## Comments

### Section 3, paragraph 23
```
    Future specifications that define new Group OSCORE roles MUST
    register a corresponding numeric identifier in the "Group OSCORE
    Roles" registry.
```
It generally doesn't make sense to apply normative requirements to future
specifications. You can simply note the expectation without 2119 keywords.

### GROUPNAME

I did a little tracing through various RFCs to find any character constraints
on GROUPNAME, and didn't determine anything stricter than "UTF-8 string."
Since this is used as part of a URI, consider explicitly restricting GROUPNAME
to URI-safe characters.

### Section 5.3, paragraph 6
```
        to the N_S value, it is RECOMMENDED to be at least 8-byte long and
        it is RECOMMENDED to be a random value.  The joining node can use
```
Why are these lengths and randomness RECOMMENDED rather than required?

### Section 11, paragraph 8
```
    *  If any of such "elder members" is found in the group, then the
        Group Manager MUST evict them from the group.  That is, the Group
```
Is the term "elder members" a useful or widely-used term here? I would think "any such members are found" would be sufficient.

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Typos

#### Section 1.1, paragraph 15
```
-    *  Monitor: member of an OSCORE group that is configured as responder
+    *  Monitor: member of an OSCORE group that is configured as a responder
+                                                                ++
```

#### Section 5.3, paragraph 6
```
-      to the N_S value, it is RECOMMENDED to be at least 8-byte long and
-                                                          ^
+      to the N_S value, it is RECOMMENDED to be at least 8 bytes long and
+                                                          ^    +
```

#### Section 6.1, paragraph 6
```
-      least 8-byte long and it is RECOMMENDED to be a random value.
-              ^
+      least 8 bytes long and it is RECOMMENDED to be a random value.
+              ^    +
```

#### Section 6.2, paragraph 30
```
-    *  If the group uses (also) the group mode of Group OSCORE, then the
-                        -------
```

#### Section 6.2, paragraph 31
```
-    *  If the group uses (also) the pairwise mode of Group OSCORE, then
-                        -------
```

#### Section 6.2.1, paragraph 2
```
-      RECOMMENDED to be at least 8-byte long and it is RECOMMENDED to be
-                                  ^
+      RECOMMENDED to be at least 8 bytes long and it is RECOMMENDED to be
+                                  ^    +
```

#### Section 6.3, paragraph 39
```
-      OSCORE group, in case the joining node is configured (also) as
-                                                            - - --  -
```

s/(also) as/as a/

#### Section 6.3, paragraph 39
```
-      is configured (also) as responder or monitor.
-                    - - --  -
```

s/(also) as/as a/


#### Section 6.3, paragraph 45
```
-      N_KDC value, it is RECOMMENDED to be at least 8-byte long and it
-                                                      ^
+      N_KDC value, it is RECOMMENDED to be at least 8 bytes long and it
+                                                      ^    +
```

#### Section 8, paragraph 4
```
-    Section 8.5 provides a summary of the CoAP methods that are admitted
-                                                                ^^
+    Section 8.5 provides a summary of the CoAP methods that are permitted
+                                                                ^^^
```

#### Section 8.4.1, paragraph 4
```
- 8.5.  Admitted Methods
-      ^^
+ 8.5.  Permitted Methods
+      ^^^
```

#### Section 8.4.1, paragraph 5
```
-    Table 2 summarizes the CoAP methods that are admitted for accessing
-                                                ^^
+    Table 2 summarizes the CoAP methods that are permitted for accessing
+                                                ^^^
```

#### Section 9.1, paragraph 1
```
-    OSCORE Security Context invalid and to be renewed.  This happens, for
-                                          ---      ^^
+    OSCORE Security Context invalid and needs to renew it.  This happens, for
+                                        ++++++        ^^^
```

#### Section 9.2, paragraph 12
```
-          Consistently with Section 2.6.3.1 of
-                    --
```

#### Section 9.5.2, paragraph 3
```
-      it is RECOMMENDED to be at least 8-byte long and it is RECOMMENDED
-                                        ^
+      it is RECOMMENDED to be at least 8 bytes long and it is RECOMMENDED
+                                        ^    +
```

#### Section 11, paragraph 8
```
-    *  If any of such "elder members" is found in the group, then the
-            ---
```

#### Section 11.1, paragraph 16
```
-    This distribution approach requires group members to act (also) as
-                                                            -------
```

#### Section 11.1, paragraph 17
```
-    to act (also) as servers.  A number of such approaches are defined in
-          -------
```

#### Section 11.3.1, paragraph 1
```
-    When realizing to have missed one or more group rekeying instances
-                    -  ^^
+    When realizing it has missed one or more group rekeying instances
+                  +    ^
```

#### Section 14.2, paragraph 1
```
-    This section applies if the group uses (also) the group mode of Group
-                                          -------
```

#### Section 14.3, paragraph 1
```
-    This section applies if the group uses (also) the pairwise mode of
-                                          -------
```

#### Section 16.2, paragraph 2
```
-    As to the N_C value, it is RECOMMENDED to be at least 8-byte long and
-                                                          ^
+    As to the N_C value, it is RECOMMENDED to be at least 8 bytes long and
+                                                          ^    +
```

#### Section 16.2, paragraph 5
```
-      least 8-byte long and it is RECOMMENDED to be a random value.
-              ^
+      least 8 bytes long and it is RECOMMENDED to be a random value.
+              ^    +
```

### Grammar/style

#### Section 1.1, paragraph 7
```
rs of the group. A responder may reply back, by sending a response message to
                                ^^^^^^^^^^
```
Consider using just "reply".

#### Section 1.1, paragraph 20
```
lication profile, a group member communicate with other other group members u
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^
```
"Member" is a singular noun. It appears that the verb form is incorrect.

#### Section 1.1, paragraph 20
```
a group member communicate with other other group members using CoAP [RFC725
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^
```
Possible typo: you repeated a word.

#### Section 5.3.2, paragraph 2
```
r Section 4.3.1.1 of [RFC9594]. Additionally to what is defined in Section 4.
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "Additionally".

Consider "In addition"

#### Section 6.4, paragraph 14
```
fferent roles in the group or as non members (REQ11). The GROUPNAME segment
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^
```
This expression is normally spelled as one or with a hyphen.

#### Section 9.9, paragraph 4
```
ns the group, the Group Manager can rely, e.g., on the ongoing secure commun
                                    ^^^^
```
The verb "rely" requires the preposition "on" (or "upon").

#### Section 10, paragraph 6
```
rial. a. The group member has participated to a rekeying process that has dis
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
The usual preposition for "participated" is "in", not "to".

#### "In case"

The phrase "in case" is generally meant to prepare for a possible eventuality. Consider using "In the case that" or "If" in most places.

[Ballot comment]
Hi Marco and Francesca,

Thank you for the effort put into this specification. Overall, I found the document well-written but requires attention to navigate through the various pieces.

Thanks to Thoams Graf for the OPSDIR review and to Marc for engaging and implementing changes in -19. The NEW text in Section 15 looks good.

Cheers,
Med

[Ballot discuss]
I'm discussing two general ideas from the draft that I believe might lead to security vulnerabilities.  Some of the specific comments in the comment section also help raise those concerns:

Monitors:  How does the Group Manager know that the monitor is legitimately in the group?  What proof does a monitor have to provide?  And what access does a monitor have to the group?  Can they request authentication credentials of other members?  There needs to be a section in Security Considerations that discusses the access a monitor has to the group and how that affects the security of the group.

Dedicated nonces:  The term 'dedicated nonce' is an oxymoron.  The classic definition of a cryptographic nonce is:  an arbitrary number that can be used just once in a cryptographic communication.  Any value that is 'dedicated' or used more than once is not a 'nonce', perhaps 'id' is a better term.
- Section 16: The profile relies heavily on the clients and group managers ability to not leak these nonces.  Yet, this is not mentioned in Section 16.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Yoav Nir for their secdir review.

General:  As I have stated before (on other drafts for this protocol), this protocol presents a complex and complicated set of requirements.  This is no different, and it is coupled with at least 8 RFC/drafts that have to be understood to use it.  Classically, complex protocols lead to developments that contain flaws due to misunderstanding the requirements to implement.  Time will tell for this protocol, maybe only the designers of the protocol will be able to implement correctly.

Section 4, para 3:  Does the Group Manager supply a member of the group who has not provided authentication credentials themselves (as a monitor is described in para 5) other group members' authentication credentials?

Section 5.3:  The organization of this section is confusing.  The top level section outlines requirements of the form:  if X appears, then Y requirements apply, with little explanation as to why one might require or exclude X.  Section 5.3.1 and 5.3.2 provide explanatory text for two of the 5 or 6 value/requirements.  This whole section would be clearer if the explanatory text was first (in 5.3) and the specific requirements are in subsections after. 

Section 6.2:  When a MAC is used as PoP, is it a keyed MAC?  If not, then what exactly is being proven?  Is it possession of the static 'dedicated nonce'?  Then one has to explain the risks (in Section 16) of leakage of this static value.

Section 7.1:  This is complicated.  Why not merely state that 'stale' OSCORE Sender IDs need to be maintained as unusable until after the group is rekeyed?  Why is it appropriate to delete older stale IDs (if this is appropriate for whatever reason, please add a warning in Section 16)?  Section 16.1 states that rekeys are done when one or more members leave the group, if that is done, how does the stale list gets to be too large.

Section 16.2:  So possession of a value (called a nonce in this draft) can be used as a PoP?  Seems odd.

[Ballot comment]
This is a long and complicated document for those not skilled in this technology.
There are a surprising high number of warning with idnits tool, even though some are touched upon in the write-up, i am not confident all were addressed.

I observed no issues from routing perspective.

G/
Routing AD

as per draft-ietf-ace-oscore-gm-admin-13

Editor's note: as per the text above, the referred version of [I-D.ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-oscore] still uses 'sign_enc_alg' as parameter name. The next version of [I-D.ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-oscore] will be updated in order to use 'gp_enc_alg' instead, as already done for this document and consistently with the naming used in the latest version of [I-D.ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm].

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-oscore-18. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA has a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

We understand that some of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document are dependent upon the approval of and completion of IANA Actions in another document: [I-D.ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm].

We understand that, upon approval of this document, there are twelve actions which we must complete.

First, in the OAuth Parameters registry in the OAuth Parameters registry group located at:

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

two new registrations will be made as follows:

Name: ecdh_info
Parameter Usage Location: client-rs request, rs-client response
Change Controller: IETF
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: kdc_dh_creds
Parameter Usage Location: client-rs request, rs-client response
Change Controller: IETF
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Since this document requests registrations in a Specification Required registry (see RFC 8126), we will initiate the required Expert Review through a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be updated to "IANA OK." Please note that any future registration requests should be sent to the oauth-ext-review@ietf.org mailing list, as described in RFC 6749.

Second, in the OAuth Parameters CBOR Mappings registry in the Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ace/

two new registrations will be made from the range -256 to 255 as follows:

Name: ecdh_info
CBOR Key: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Value Type: Null or array
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Original Specification: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: kdc_dh_creds
CBOR Key: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Value Type: Null or array
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Original Specification: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this also requests registrations in an Expert Review (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

Third, in the ACE Groupcomm Parameters registry also in the Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ace/

five new registrations will be made as follows:

Name: group_senderId
CBOR Key: 21 (suggested)
CBOR Type: bstr
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: ecdh_info
CBOR Key: 31 (suggested)
CBOR Type: array
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: kdc_dh_creds
CBOR Key: 32 (suggested)
CBOR Type: array
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: sign_enc_key
CBOR Key: 33 (suggested)
CBOR Type: bstr
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: stale_node_ids
CBOR Key: 34 (suggested)
CBOR Type: array
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA notes that the authors have suggested values for the CBOR keys and will attempt to honor those suggestions.

As this also requests registrations in an Expert Review registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

Fourth, in the ACE Groupcomm Key Types registry also in the Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ace/

a new registration will be made as follows:

Name: Group_OSCORE_Input_Material object
Key Type Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Profile: "coap_group_oscore_app", defined in [ RFC-to-be; Section 16.5].
Description: A Group_OSCORE_Input_Material object encoded as described in [ RFC-to-be; Section 6.3].
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA Question --> What range in the registry should the value for Key Type Value come from?

As this also requests a registration in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK.

Fifth, in the ACE Groupcomm Profiles registry also in the Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ace/

a new registration will be made as follows:

Name: coap_group_oscore_app
Description: Application profile to provision keying material for participating in group communication protected with Group OSCORE as per [I-D.ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm].
CBOR Label: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA Question --> What range in the registry should the value for CBOR Label come from?

As this also requests a registration in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

Sixth, in the OSCORE Security Context Parameters registry also in the Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ace/

seven new registrations will be made as follows:

Name: group_SenderId
CBOR Label: 7 (suggested)
CBOR Type: byte string
Registry: -
Description: OSCORE Sender ID assigned to a member of an OSCORE group
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: cred_fmt
CBOR Label: 8 (suggested)
CBOR Type: integer
Registry: [COSE.Header.Parameters] Labels (integer)
Description: Format of authentication credentials to be used in the OSCORE group
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: gp_enc_alg
CBOR Label: 9 (suggested)
CBOR Type: text string / integer
Registry: [COSE.Algorithms] Values
Description: OSCORE Group Encryption Algorithm Value
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: sign_alg
CBOR Label: 10 (suggested)
CBOR Type: text string / integer
Registry: [COSE.Algorithms] Values
Description: OSCORE Signature Algorithm Value
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: sign_params
CBOR Label: 11 (suggested)
CBOR Type: array
Registry: [COSE.Algorithms] Capabilities, [COSE.Key.Types] Capabilities, [COSE.Elliptic.Curves] Values
Description: OSCORE Signature Algorithm Parameters
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: ecdh_alg
CBOR Label: 12 (suggested)
CBOR Type: text string / integer
Registry: [COSE.Algorithms] Values
Description: OSCORE Pairwise Key Agreement Algorithm Value
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: ecdh_params
CBOR Label: 13 (suggested)
CBOR Type: array
Registry: [COSE.Algorithms] Capabilities, [COSE.Key.Types] Capabilities, [COSE.Elliptic.Curves] Values
Description: OSCORE Pairwise Key Agreement Algorithm Parameters
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA notes that the authors have suggested values for the CBOR keys and will attempt to honor those suggestions.

As this also requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

Seventh, in the TLS Exporter Labels registry in the Transport Layer Security (TLS) Parameters registry group located at:

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

a new registration will be made as follows:

Value: EXPORTER-ACE-Pop-Input-coap-group-oscore-app
DTLS-OK: Y
Recommended: N
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this also requests a registration in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

Eighth, in the Sub-Parameter Registry for application/aif+cbor and application/aif+json registry in the Media Type Sub-Parameters registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-type-sub-parameters/

two new registrations will be made as follows:

Parameter: Toid
Name: oscore-gname
Description/Specification: OSCORE group name
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Parameter: Tperm
Name: oscore-gperm
Description/Specification: permissions pertaining OSCORE groups
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this also requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

Ninth, in the CoAP Content-Formats registry in the Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Parameters registry group located at:

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

two new registrations will be made as follows:

Content Type: application/aif+cbor;Toid="oscore-gname",Tperm="oscore-gperm"
Content Coding: -
Media Type: application/aif+cbor
ID: 292 (suggested)
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Content Type: application/aif+json;Toid="oscore-gname",Tperm="oscore-gperm"
Content Coding: -
Media Type: application/aif+json
ID: 293 (suggested)
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA notes that the authors have suggested values for the CBOR keys and will attempt to honor those suggestions.

As this also requests registrations in an Expert Review (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

Tenth, in the Resource Type (rt=) Link Target Attribute Values registry in the Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Parameters registry group located at:

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

a new registration will be made as follows:

Value: "core.osc.gm"
Description: Group-membership resource of an OSCORE Group Manager.
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Eleventh, in the ACE Groupcomm Errors in the Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ace/

three new registrations will be made as follows:

Value: 7 (suggested)
Description: Signatures not used in the group.
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: 8 (suggested)
Description: Operation permitted only to signature verifiers.
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: 9 (suggested)
Description: Group currently not active.
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA notes that the authors have suggested values for these registrations and will attempt to honor those suggestions.

As this also requests registrations in an Expert Review (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

Twelfth, a new registry is to be created called the Group OSCORE Roles registry.

IANA Question -> Where should this new registry be located? Does it belong in an existing registry group at https://www.iana.org/protocols, or should a new group be created?

The new registry will be managed via Expert Review as defined in [RFC8126].

The fields of this registry are:

Name: A value that can be used in documents for easier comprehension, to identify a possible role that nodes can take in an OSCORE group.

Value: The numeric identifier for this role. Integer values greater than 65535 are marked as "Private Use", all other values use the registration policy "Expert Review" [RFC8126].

Description: This field contains a brief description of the role.

Reference: This contains a pointer to the public specification for the role.

There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows:

Name Value Description Reference
----------+-----+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+-------------
Reserved 0 This value is reserved [ RFC-to-be ]
Requester 1 Send protected requests; receive protected responses [ RFC-to-be ]
Responder 2 Send protected responses; receive protected requests [ RFC-to-be ]
Monitor 3 Receive protected requests; never send protected messages [ RFC-to-be ]
Verifier 4 Verify signature of intercepted messages protected with the group mode [ RFC-to-be ]

We understand that these actions are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

NOTE: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Operations Manager

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2025-09-25):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: ace-chairs@ietf.org, ace@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-oscore@ietf.org, paul.wouters@aiven.io, rikard.hoglund@ri.se
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Key Management for Group Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments (Group OSCORE) Using Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Authentication and Authorization for
Constrained Environments WG (ace) to consider the following document: - 'Key
Management for Group Object Security for Constrained RESTful
  Environments (Group OSCORE) Using Authentication and Authorization
  for Constrained Environments (ACE)'
  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 2025-09-25. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document defines an application profile of the Authentication
  and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) framework, to
  request and provision keying material in group communication
  scenarios that are based on the Constrained Application Protocol
  (CoAP) and are secured with Group Object Security for Constrained
  RESTful Environments (Group OSCORE).  This application profile
  delegates the authentication and authorization of Clients, which join
  an OSCORE group through a Resource Server acting as Group Manager for
  that group.  This application profile leverages protocol-specific
  transport profiles of ACE to achieve communication security, server
  authentication, and proof of possession for a key owned by the Client
  and bound to an OAuth 2.0 access token.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-oscore/



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

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

Shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-oscore-15

## 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 has reached a broad agreement in the working group.

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

Based on reviewing conversations on the mailing list and minutes from ACE WG
meetings I have found no such decisions or points.

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.)

To my knowledge, no such action has been taken by anyone.

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

An implementation in Java of the content of the document is available at [1].
The implementation builds on Key Provisioning for Group Communication using
ACE (draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm) and ACE framework for Authentication and
Authorization (RFC9200), as the document subject to this write-up itself
does.

[1] https://bitbucket.org/marco-tiloca-sics/ace-java/

The existence of this implementation has been reported during ACE Working
Group meetings.

## 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 closely interacts with technologies being built within the CoRE
Working Group, specifically the Group OSCORE protocol
(draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm). Feedback and reviews to this document has
been received from current and former regular participants in the CoRE
Working Group meetings. This includes Göran Selander (mail to ACE WG mailing
list on 2022-03-20), Jim Schaad (see mail to ACE WG mailing list on 2020-03-
14), and Christian Amsüss(see mail to ACE WG mailing list on 2020-07-31).

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.

The document registers 2 entries in the Sub-Parameter Registry for
application/aif+cbor and application/aif+json of the Media Type Sub-Parameter
Registries. The Registration Procedure for it is Specification Required.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
in RFC 8342?

This document does not contain a 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.

I have performed checks of CBOR in diagnostic notation using the cbor.me
tool. Additionally I have checked the CDDL within the document using the Ruby
program cddlc. Results of these checks will be included in the shepherd’s
review. Lastly, I have learnt that the authors have received feedback related
to the CBOR diagnostic notation in the document and fixed that in the
editor’s copy (see [2]).

[2] https://github.com/ace-wg/ace-key-groupcomm-oscore/commit/21d60b86a25c59be42d64a443149a4ba02b27698

## 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, based on the shepherd’s review and the other feedback this document has
received via the ACE WG mailing list and WG meetings, this document is ready
to be handed off to the responsible AD.

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

I have no specific additions.

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

The intended status as specified within this document is Standards Track.
Currently the Datatracker Intended RFC status is “None”, so presumably this
should be updated.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.

I have requested information specifically from the authors (and any other
party) regarding IPR. See my mail to the ACE WG mailing list on 2022-12-19
at [3]. No author or any other party disclosed any IPR.

[3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ace/-GvLBDeRo3ideuw3y9k2_DXnLcU/

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.

None of the authors have shown any unwillingness to be listed, or mentioned
this during my communications with them. The number of authors for this
document is 3.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There are warnings related to too long lines which the tools suggest can be
caused by non-ASCII characters, which is indeed the case. There were also
additional warnings due to presence of non-ASCII characters.

A number of warnings appeared due to outdated references which can be
expected as this document version is from 2022-09-05 and has not been re-
submitted since (although work has been done on the editor’s copy).
Similarly, warnings are also caused by the copyright year in the IETF Trust
and authors Copyright Line and the document date.

Furthermore the tool warns about 2 instances of lines with non-RFC6890-
compliant IPv4 addresses. The reason for this is unclear to me and it may be
a false positive. The tools mistakes some terms specified in the document
such as Toid, Tperm, and EC2 etc. as references when they are not.

Lastly, the tool warns about downrefs and obsolete references which I will
cover in the following points.

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

In my opinion the existing references are of suitable type.

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 references are publically available documents.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

The following normative downrefs not present in the DOWNREF registry exist in
the document:

CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE): Initial Algorithms (RFC 9053).

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?

Two of the normative references are drafts:

Key Provisioning for Group Communication using ACE
(draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm). The status of this document is “Submitted to
IESG for Publication; Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway”.

Group OSCORE - Secure Group Communication for CoAP
(draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm). The status of this document is “WG
Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up”.

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.

Publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFC.

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).

As part of the shepherd's review process I have checked all the criteria above
and this document fulfils them.

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.

The document establishes the IANA "Group OSCORE Roles" registry which uses
Expert Review procedure. The instructions for the Experts are clear and
listed in a separate section of the document. A suggestion for designated
experts would be to utilize the authors of this document.

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

Shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-oscore-15

## 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 has reached a broad agreement in the working group.

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

Based on reviewing conversations on the mailing list and minutes from ACE WG
meetings I have found no such decisions or points.

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.)

To my knowledge, no such action has been taken by anyone.

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

An implementation in Java of the content of the document is available at [1].
The implementation builds on Key Provisioning for Group Communication using
ACE (draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm) and ACE framework for Authentication and
Authorization (RFC9200), as the document subject to this write-up itself
does.

[1] https://bitbucket.org/marco-tiloca-sics/ace-java/

The existence of this implementation has been reported during ACE Working
Group meetings.

## 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 closely interacts with technologies being built within the CoRE
Working Group, specifically the Group OSCORE protocol
(draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm). Feedback and reviews to this document has
been received from current and former regular participants in the CoRE
Working Group meetings. This includes Göran Selander (mail to ACE WG mailing
list on 2022-03-20), Jim Schaad (see mail to ACE WG mailing list on 2020-03-
14), and Christian Amsüss(see mail to ACE WG mailing list on 2020-07-31).

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.

The document registers 2 entries in the Sub-Parameter Registry for
application/aif+cbor and application/aif+json of the Media Type Sub-Parameter
Registries. The Registration Procedure for it is Specification Required.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
in RFC 8342?

This document does not contain a 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.

I have performed checks of CBOR in diagnostic notation using the cbor.me
tool. Additionally I have checked the CDDL within the document using the Ruby
program cddlc. Results of these checks will be included in the shepherd’s
review. Lastly, I have learnt that the authors have received feedback related
to the CBOR diagnostic notation in the document and fixed that in the
editor’s copy (see [2]).

[2] https://github.com/ace-wg/ace-key-groupcomm-oscore/commit/21d60b86a25c59be42d64a443149a4ba02b27698

## 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, based on the shepherd’s review and the other feedback this document has
received via the ACE WG mailing list and WG meetings, this document is ready
to be handed off to the responsible AD.

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

I have no specific additions.

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

The intended status as specified within this document is Standards Track.
Currently the Datatracker Intended RFC status is “None”, so presumably this
should be updated.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.

I have requested information specifically from the authors (and any other
party) regarding IPR. See my mail to the ACE WG mailing list on 2022-12-19
at [3]. No author or any other party disclosed any IPR.

[3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ace/-GvLBDeRo3ideuw3y9k2_DXnLcU/

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.

None of the authors have shown any unwillingness to be listed, or mentioned
this during my communications with them. The number of authors for this
document is 3.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There are warnings related to too long lines which the tools suggest can be
caused by non-ASCII characters, which is indeed the case. There were also
additional warnings due to presence of non-ASCII characters.

A number of warnings appeared due to outdated references which can be
expected as this document version is from 2022-09-05 and has not been re-
submitted since (although work has been done on the editor’s copy).
Similarly, warnings are also caused by the copyright year in the IETF Trust
and authors Copyright Line and the document date.

Furthermore the tool warns about 2 instances of lines with non-RFC6890-
compliant IPv4 addresses. The reason for this is unclear to me and it may be
a false positive. The tools mistakes some terms specified in the document
such as Toid, Tperm, and EC2 etc. as references when they are not.

Lastly, the tool warns about downrefs and obsolete references which I will
cover in the following points.

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

In my opinion the existing references are of suitable type.

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 references are publically available documents.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

The following normative downrefs not present in the DOWNREF registry exist in
the document:

CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE): Initial Algorithms (RFC 9053).

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?

Two of the normative references are drafts:

Key Provisioning for Group Communication using ACE
(draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm). The status of this document is “Submitted to
IESG for Publication; Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway”.

Group OSCORE - Secure Group Communication for CoAP
(draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm). The status of this document is “WG
Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up”.

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.

Publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFC.

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).

As part of the shepherd's review process I have checked all the criteria above
and this document fulfils them.

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.

The document establishes the IANA "Group OSCORE Roles" registry which uses
Expert Review procedure. The instructions for the Experts are clear and
listed in a separate section of the document. A suggestion for designated
experts would be to utilize the authors of this document.

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

Shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-oscore-15

## 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 has reached a broad agreement in the working group.

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

Based on reviewing conversations on the mailing list and minutes from ACE WG
meetings I have found no such decisions or points.

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.)

To my knowledge, no such action has been taken by anyone.

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

An implementation in Java of the content of the document is available at [1].
The implementation builds on Key Provisioning for Group Communication using
ACE (draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm) and ACE framework for Authentication and
Authorization (RFC9200), as the document subject to this write-up itself
does.

[1] https://bitbucket.org/marco-tiloca-sics/ace-java/

The existence of this implementation has been reported during ACE Working
Group meetings.

## 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 closely interacts with technologies being built within the CoRE
Working Group, specifically the Group OSCORE protocol
(draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm). Feedback and reviews to this document has
been received from current and former regular participants in the CoRE
Working Group meetings. This includes Göran Selander (mail to ACE WG mailing
list on 2022-03-20), Jim Schaad (see mail to ACE WG mailing list on 2020-03-
14), and Christian Amsüss(see mail to ACE WG mailing list on 2020-07-31).

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.

The document registers 2 entries in the Sub-Parameter Registry for
application/aif+cbor and application/aif+json of the Media Type Sub-Parameter
Registries. The Registration Procedure for it is Specification Required.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
in RFC 8342?

This document does not contain a 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.

I have performed checks of CBOR in diagnostic notation using the cbor.me
tool. Additionally I have checked the CDDL within the document using the Ruby
program cddlc. Results of these checks will be included in the shepherd’s
review. Lastly, I have learnt that the authors have received feedback related
to the CBOR diagnostic notation in the document and fixed that in the
editor’s copy (see [2]).

[2] https://github.com/ace-wg/ace-key-groupcomm-oscore/commit/21d60b86a25c59be42d64a443149a4ba02b27698

## 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, based on the shepherd’s review and the other feedback this document has
received via the ACE WG mailing list and WG meetings, this document is ready
to be handed off to the responsible AD.

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

I have no specific additions.

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

The intended status as specified within this document is Standards Track.
Currently the Datatracker Intended RFC status is “None”, so presumably this
should be updated.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.

I have requested information specifically from the authors (and any other
party) regarding IPR. See my mail to the ACE WG mailing list on 2022-12-19
at [3]. No author or any other party disclosed any IPR.

[3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ace/-GvLBDeRo3ideuw3y9k2_DXnLcU/

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.

None of the authors have shown any unwillingness to be listed, or mentioned
this during my communications with them. The number of authors for this
document is 3.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There are warnings related to too long lines which the tools suggest can be
caused by non-ASCII characters, which is indeed the case. There were also
additional warnings due to presence of non-ASCII characters.

A number of warnings appeared due to outdated references which can be
expected as this document version is from 2022-09-05 and has not been re-
submitted since (although work has been done on the editor’s copy).
Similarly, warnings are also caused by the copyright year in the IETF Trust
and authors Copyright Line and the document date.

Furthermore the tool warns about 2 instances of lines with non-RFC6890-
compliant IPv4 addresses. The reason for this is unclear to me and it may be
a false positive. The tools mistakes some terms specified in the document
such as Toid, Tperm, and EC2 etc. as references when they are not.

Lastly, the tool warns about downrefs and obsolete references which I will
cover in the following points.

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

In my opinion the existing references are of suitable type.

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 references are publically available documents.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

The following normative downrefs not present in the DOWNREF registry exist in
the document:

CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE): Initial Algorithms (RFC 9053).

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?

Two of the normative references are drafts:

Key Provisioning for Group Communication using ACE
(draft-ietf-ace-key- groupcomm). The status of this document is “Submitted to
IESG for Publication; Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway”.

Group OSCORE - Secure Group Communication for CoAP
(draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm). The status of this document is “WG
Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up”.

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.

Publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFC.

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).

As part of the shepherd's review process I have checked all the criteria above
and this document fulfils them.

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.

The document establishes the IANA "Group OSCORE Roles" registry which uses
Expert Review procedure. The instructions for the Experts are clear and
listed in a separate section of the document. A suggestion for designated
experts would be to utilize the authors of this document.

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

Shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-oscore-15

## 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 has reached a broad agreement in the working group.

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

Based on reviewing conversations on the mailing list and minutes from ACE WG
meetings I have found no such decisions or points.

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.)

To my knowledge, no such action has been taken by anyone.

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

An implementation in Java of the content of the document is available at [1].
The implementation builds on Key Provisioning for Group Communication using
ACE (draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm) and ACE framework for Authentication and
Authorization (RFC9200), as the document subject to this write-up itself
does.

[1] https://bitbucket.org/marco-tiloca-sics/ace-java/

The existence of this implementation has been reported during ACE Working
Group meetings.

## 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 closely interacts with technologies being built within the CoRE
Working Group, specifically the Group OSCORE protocol (draft-ietf-core-oscore-
groupcomm). Feedback and reviews to this document has been received from
current and former regular participants in the CoRE Working Group meetings.
This includes Göran Selander (mail to ACE WG mailing list on 2022-03-20), Jim
Schaad (see mail to ACE WG mailing list on 2020-03-14), and Christian Amsüss
(see mail to ACE WG mailing list on 2020-07-31).

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.

The document registers 2 entries in the Sub-Parameter Registry for
application/aif+cbor and application/aif+json of the Media Type Sub-Parameter
Registries. The Registration Procedure for it is Specification Required.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
in RFC 8342?

This document does not contain a 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.

I have performed checks of CBOR in diagnostic notation using the cbor.me
tool. Additionally I have checked the CDDL within the document using the Ruby
program cddlc. Results of these checks will be included in the shepherd’s
review. Lastly, I have learnt that the authors have received feedback related
to the CBOR diagnostic notation in the document and fixed that in the
editor’s copy (see [2]).

[2] https://github.com/ace-wg/ace-key-groupcomm-oscore/commit/21d60b86a25c59be42d64a443149a4ba02b27698

## 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, based on the shepherd’s review and the other feedback this document has
received via the ACE WG mailing list and WG meetings, this document is ready
to be handed off to the responsible AD.

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

I have no specific additions.

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

The intended status as specified within this document is Standards Track.
Currently the Datatracker Intended RFC status is “None”, so presumably this
should be updated.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.

I have requested information specifically from the authors (and any other
party) regarding IPR. See my mail to the ACE WG mailing list on 2022-12-19
at [3]. No author or any other party disclosed any IPR.

[3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ace/-GvLBDeRo3ideuw3y9k2_DXnLcU/

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.

None of the authors have shown any unwillingness to be listed, or mentioned
this during my communications with them. The number of authors for this
document is 3.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There are warnings related to too long lines which the tools suggest can be
caused by non-ASCII characters, which is indeed the case. There were also
additional warnings due to presence of non-ASCII characters.

A number of warnings appeared due to outdated references which can be
expected as this document version is from 2022-09-05 and has not been re-
submitted since (although work has been done on the editor’s copy).
Similarly, warnings are also caused by the copyright year in the IETF Trust
and authors Copyright Line and the document date.

Furthermore the tool warns about 2 instances of lines with non-RFC6890-
compliant IPv4 addresses. The reason for this is unclear to me and it may be
a false positive. The tools mistakes some terms specified in the document
such as Toid, Tperm, and EC2 etc. as references when they are not.

Lastly, the tool warns about downrefs and obsolete references which I will
cover in the following points.

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

In my opinion the existing references are of suitable type.

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 references are publically available documents.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

The following normative downrefs not present in the DOWNREF registry exist in
the document:

CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE): Initial Algorithms (RFC 9053).

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?

Two of the normative references are drafts:

Key Provisioning for Group Communication using ACE (draft-ietf-ace-key-
groupcomm). The status of this document is “Submitted to IESG for
Publication; Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway”.

Group OSCORE - Secure Group Communication for CoAP (draft-ietf-core-oscore-
groupcomm). The status of this document is “WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-
Up”.

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.

Publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFC.

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).

As part of the shepherd's review process I have checked all the criteria above
and this document fulfils them.

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.

The document establishes the IANA "Group OSCORE Roles" registry which uses
Expert Review procedure. The instructions for the Experts are clear and
listed in a separate section of the document. A suggestion for designated
experts would be to utilize the authors of this document.

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

Shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-oscore-15

## 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 has reached a broad agreement in the working group.

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

Based on reviewing conversations on the mailing list and minutes from ACE WG
meetings I have found no such decisions or points.

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.)

To my knowledge, no such action has been taken by anyone.

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

An implementation in Java of the content of the document is available at [1].
The implementation builds on Key Provisioning for Group Communication using
ACE (draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm) and ACE framework for Authentication and
Authorization (RFC9200), as the document subject to this write-up itself
does.

[1] https://bitbucket.org/marco-tiloca-sics/ace-java/

The existence of this implementation has been reported during ACE Working
Group meetings.

## 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 closely interacts with technologies being built within the CoRE
Working Group, specifically the Group OSCORE protocol (draft-ietf-core-oscore-
groupcomm). Feedback and reviews to this document has been received from
current and former regular participants in the CoRE Working Group meetings.
This includes Göran Selander (mail to ACE WG mailing list on 2022-03-20), Jim
Schaad (see mail to ACE WG mailing list on 2020-03-14), and Christian Amsüss
(see mail to ACE WG mailing list on 2020-07-31).

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.

The document registers 2 entries in the Sub-Parameter Registry for
application/aif+cbor and application/aif+json of the Media Type Sub-Parameter
Registries. The Registration Procedure for it is Specification Required.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
in RFC 8342?

This document does not contain a 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.

I have performed checks of CBOR in diagnostic notation using the cbor.me
tool. Additionally I have checked the CDDL within the document using the Ruby
program cddlc. Results of these checks will be included in the shepherd’s
review. Lastly, I have learnt that the authors have received feedback related
to the CBOR diagnostic notation in the document and fixed that in the
editor’s copy (see [2]).

[2] https://github.com/ace-wg/ace-key-groupcomm-oscore/commit/21d60b86a25c59be42d64a443149a4ba02b27698

## 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, based on the shepherd’s review and the other feedback this document has
received via the ACE WG mailing list and WG meetings, this document is ready
to be handed off to the responsible AD.

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

I have no specific additions.

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

The intended status as specified within this document is Standards Track.
Currently the Datatracker Intended RFC status is “None”, so presumably this
should be updated.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.

I have requested information specifically from the authors (and any other
party) regarding IPR. See my mail to the ACE WG mailing list on 2022-12-19
at [3]. No author or any other party disclosed any IPR.

[3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ace/-GvLBDeRo3ideuw3y9k2_DXnLcU/

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.

None of the authors have shown any unwillingness to be listed, or mentioned
this during my communications with them. The number of authors for this
document is 3.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There are warnings related to too long lines which the tools suggest can be
caused by non-ASCII characters, which is indeed the case. There were also
additional warnings due to presence of non-ASCII characters.

A number of warnings appeared due to outdated references which can be
expected as this document version is from 2022-09-05 and has not been re-
submitted since (although work has been done on the editor’s copy).
Similarly, warnings are also caused by the copyright year in the IETF Trust
and authors Copyright Line and the document date.

Furthermore the tool warns about 2 instances of lines with non-RFC6890-
compliant IPv4 addresses. The reason for this is unclear to me and it may be
a false positive. The tools mistakes some terms specified in the document
such as Toid, Tperm, and EC2 etc. as references when they are not.

Lastly, the tool warns about downrefs and obsolete references which I will
cover in the following points.

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

In my opinion the existing references are of suitable type.

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 references are publically available documents.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

The following normative downrefs not present in the DOWNREF registry exist in
the document:

CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE): Initial Algorithms (RFC 9053).

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?

Two of the normative references are drafts:

Key Provisioning for Group Communication using ACE (draft-ietf-ace-key-
groupcomm). The status of this document is “Submitted to IESG for
Publication; Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway”.

Group OSCORE - Secure Group Communication for CoAP (draft-ietf-core-oscore-
groupcomm). The status of this document is “WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-
Up”.

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.

Publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFC.

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).

As part of the shepherd's review process I have checked all the criteria above
and this document fulfils them.

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.

The document establishes the IANA "Group OSCORE Roles" registry which uses
Expert Review procedure. The instructions for the Experts are clear and
listed in a separate section of the document. A suggestion for designated
experts would be to utilize the authors of this document.