Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-emu-eap-edhoc
# 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?
WGLC Thread:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/emu/slDvUNv_m1E2-nBAsX_xya2r-Og/ WLC
Launched 25 June 2025, after one week of no answer, a reminder by Peter Yee (WG
Chair) triggered some support (4 people), including 2 with reviews/nits.
Support: Marco Tiloca , Dan Harkins, Gabriel Lopez Millan, Alan DeKok. Review
or Comments: Marco Tiloca, Alexander Clouter. Both reviews are addressed in
the latest version of draft (v 05). Comments by Michael Richardson about
implementation details. The document seems to be stable without major
controversies in the current final form. The history of this document goes back
to 2020 ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ingles-eap-edhoc/ )
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
A quick review of archive
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/emu/?q=draft-ietf-emu-eap-edhoc and
answer from a chair revealed no particular controversy nor very rough
consensus. On the contrary , it has been noted that the authors graciously
incorporated WG feedback into the document.
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)?
Yes, There are at least two implementations. See
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/emu/VfSVDNj8hV5ckdL1_Vc2o0B-5zg/
Of those, one is public, the one from the authors’s (University of Murcia
) https://gitlab.com/franciscolopezg/eap-edhoc-testbed.
## Additional Reviews
5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.
Interacts with LAKE WG (EDHOC rfc9528). Marco Tiloca, involved on LAKE WG,
provided feedback, also some of the authors are active participants of LAKE (or
even EDHOC rfc9528 authors’s: Göran and John). Further review in the form of
IETF LC is sufficient. IOTDIR review will be relevant too.
6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
N/A.
7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
in [RFC 8342][5]?
N/A.
8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
N/A.
## Document Shepherd Checks
9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
Yes, the document is useful , clearly written, complete, and well designed.
Some nits were identified by this shepherd’s review (
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/emu/7VyDVDrLqBH9PuSKZjprvqGqXvo/ ). They
do not impact the document meaningfully, so the document can be handed off to
the AD; though, if time permits, can be handled before.
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?
None remain. SEC area potential topics have been addressed in the security
considerations section (seven subsections).
11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
[Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
Proposed Standard. This is the correct type as this document proposes a new EAP
( |RFC3748]) authentication method : EAP-EDHOC (based on [RFC9528]). This is
reflected on the Datatracker.
12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.
Public email sent
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/emu/54g4e6JXIAJw2slUtpdD9JpYg6s/ . No IPR
related disclosures.
13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.
Yes, all authors (5) have acknowledged their willingness to be marked as
authors. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/emu/54g4e6JXIAJw2slUtpdD9JpYg6s/
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.)
The document pass idnits. With some Warnings:
== There are 10 instances of lines with non-ascii characters in the document.
== Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of
draft-ietf-cose-cbor-encoded-cert-14
== Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of
draft-ietf-lake-edhoc-psk-04
Regarding the content guidelines, the draft is appropriately named. All
required sections are present in the draft. Optional Privacy Considerations is
present in SS 6.7. It does not contain an Implementation Status section. The
document has an IANA considerations section (as it requests some registers).
Language and style: abbreviations appropriately expandeed (but two, who were
noted on this shepherd’s review), does not misrepresent its status, adheres to
BCP 14, does not use non-inclusive language , and does not seem to contain
stale text. Protocol checklist OK.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
All references seem appropriately categorized.
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
All normative references are RFCs.
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.
No.
18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?
No
19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
NO
20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).
The IANA considerations section are consistent with the body of the document.
Five new IANA assignments are demanded, and the appropriate IANA existing
registries identified. Description is clear, however Label or Value all are
TBD. Will need to identify at least the range of the value/label, but most will
require an expert because will be of type (Standards Action , Expert Review or
Specification Required). I am noting the experts taken from IANA regs.:
EAP -> Method Types Value: TBD1. Expert(s) Joseph Salowey
EDHOC ->EDHOC Exporter Labels. Labels: TBD2, TBD3, TBD4. Expert(s) John
Mattson, Göran Selander, Mališa Vučinić (John and Goran are co-authors of this
document)
EDHOC -> EDHOC External Authorization Data. Label: TBD5. Expert(s) John
Mattson, Göran Selander, Mališa Vučinić (John and Goran are co-authors of this
document) )
21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
N/A
[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]:
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/
Back