Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT) and Transport Layer Security (TLS) Profile of Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) Framework
draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-17

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work on this document

Many thanks to Jean Mahoney for her ART ART review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/REdbeKR0FBJ1CnVtKOUaJnaeONk/, and to the authors for addressing it.

Thanks to Carsten Bormann for his review and text improvement to the IANA registrations for AIF (in the editor copy, to be included in v-17).

Francesca

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Jean Mahoney for her ARTART review.  I encourage the authors to respond at least to what she identified as minor issues.

Thanks for resolving my DISCUSS issue.

The final SHOULD in Section 2.4.2 seems weak to me.  I recommend using a non-BCP 14 "should" instead.

[Ballot discuss]
Updating my ballot after reviewing draft-ietf-ace-aif-06. Just want to make sure we don't miss anything, please feel free to correct me if I missed the mark here.

FP: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ace-aif-06#section-4 states:

default values are the values "URI-local-
  part" for Toid and "REST-method-set" for Tperm, as per Section 3 of
  the present specification.

  A specification that wants to use Generic AIF with different Toid
  and/or Tperm is expected to request these as media type parameters
  (Section 5.2) and register a corresponding Content-Format
  (Section 5.3).

FP: I wonder if this document should define a new media type parameter for Tperm (as REST-method-set is not appropriate for "pub"/"sub" value) and register a corresponding Content-Format as indicated in the paragraph above. CC'ing Carsten for his opinion.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work on this document

Many thanks to Jean Mahoney for her ART ART review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/REdbeKR0FBJ1CnVtKOUaJnaeONk/, and to the authors for addressing it.

Only two minor comments easy to fix, see below.

Francesca

1. -----

FP: Please replace references to RFC7230 with draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-19 which will obsolete it once published. Note that draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-19 is already with the RFC Editor so will not delay publication of your document.

2. -----

Section 7.3

FP: I believe this profile should be registered in the Standards track portion of the registry - please add a note about it so that IANA is aware, changing for example:

OLD:
*  CBOR Value: To be assigned by IANA
NEW:
*  CBOR Value: To be assigned by IANA in the (-256, 255) range

[Ballot discuss]
This should be quick to resolve.  In Section 3.2:

  The Broker MUST NOT forward messages to unauthorized subscribers.
  There is no way to inform the Clients with invalid tokens that an
  authorization error has occurred other than sending a DISCONNECT
  packet.  Therefore, the Broker SHOULD send a DISCONNECT packet with
  the reason code '0x87 (Not authorized)'.

This seems like a contradiction.  How is that SHOULD not a MUST?

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Jean Mahoney for her ARTART review.  I encourage the authors to respond at least to what she identified as minor issues.

The final SHOULD in Section 2.4.2 seems weak to me.  I recommend using a non-BCP 14 "should" instead.

In Section 7.2, the "Required Parameters" and "Optional Parameters" should be "N/A", not "none".  See Section 5.6 of RFC 6838.

[Ballot comment]
** Section 2.

  If the Client is resource-constrained or does not support HTTPS, a
  separate Client Authorization Server may carry out the token request
  on behalf of the Client, and later, onboard the Client with the
  token. 

Appreciating that the CAS is out of scope, I’m trying to understand which of the (A) – (F) interactions are handled by the Client and which would be handled by the CAS.  Figure 1 is a ambiguous.  (A) and (B) seem like they would be covered by the CAS, but I’m assuming (C) and (D) are the Client after being provisioned with the access token (from A and B).  Is that correct?  If so, it would be helpful to clarify that in the text and/or diagram.

** Section 3.3.
  As a response to the SUBSCRIBE packet, the Broker issues a SUBACK.
  For each Topic Filter, the SUBACK packet includes a return code
  matching the QoS level for the corresponding Topic Filter.  In the
  case of failure, the return code is 0x87, indicating that the Client
  is 'Not authorized'.  A reason code is returned for each Topic
  Filter. 

This may be a detail of MQTT.  Does the explicit use of “not authorized” vs. “not authorized/not found” leak the existence of a topic name to an off-path attacker?  It seems that with “not authorized” semantics, one could try to guess topic name with enumeration, say, try 1: “/topic/is-the-sensitive-project-called-A”, try 2: “/topic/is-the-sensitive-project-called-B”, etc.

Editorial Nits

** Section 1. Editorial. s/The Client-AS and RS-AS/The Client-AS and RS-AS communication/

** Section 1.3.  Editorial.  Chose either the “65535” or “65,535” convention (comma or no comma).  “UTF-8 string” uses the former and “binary data” uses the latter

** Section 1.2. Editorial.  SUBACK.  Describe the who is the sender and receiver like in the other message types.

OLD
Subscribe acknowledgement.

NEW
Subscribe acknowledgement from the Broker to the Client.

** Section 2.  Editorial.
  The token request and
  response use the token endpoint at the AS, specified for HTTP-based
  interactions in Section 5.8 of the ACE framework
  [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz].

This reference should likely read Section 4 of [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz] as this section included the bullet protocol flow from (A) – (E).

** Section 2.3.  Should it be MQTT messages vs. MQTT packets?  For example, in “… to allow a Client’s future PUBLISH and SUBSCRIBE packets”.

** Section 3.3.  Editorial.  s/token token/token scope which/

[Ballot comment]
** Section 2.

  If the Client is resource-constrained or does not support HTTPS, a
  separate Client Authorization Server may carry out the token request
  on behalf of the Client, and later, onboard the Client with the
  token. 

Appreciating that the CAS is out of scope, I’m trying to understand which of the (A) – (F) interactions are handled by the Client and which would be handled by the CAS.  Figure 1 is a ambiguous.  (A) and (B) seem like they would be covered by the CAS, but I’m assuming (C) and (D) are the Client after being provisioned with the access token (from A and B).  Is that correct?  If so, it would be helpful to clarify that in the text and/or diagram.

** Section 3.3.
  As a response to the SUBSCRIBE packet, the Broker issues a SUBACK.
  For each Topic Filter, the SUBACK packet includes a return code
  matching the QoS level for the corresponding Topic Filter.  In the
  case of failure, the return code is 0x87, indicating that the Client
  is 'Not authorized'.  A reason code is returned for each Topic
  Filter. 

This may be a detail of MQTT.  Does the explicit use of “not authorized” vs. “not authorized/not found” leak the existence of a topic name to an off-path attacker?  It seems that with “not authorized” semantics, one could try to guess topic name with enumeration, say, try 1: “/topic/is-the-sensitive-project-called-A”, try 2: “/topic/is-the-sensitive-project-called-B”, etc.

Editorial Nits

** Section 1. Editorial. s/The Client-AS and RS-AS/The Client-AS and RS-AS communication/

** Section 1.3.  Editorial.  Chose either the “65535” or “65,535” convention (comma or no comma).  “UTF-8 string” uses the former and “binary data” uses the latter

** Section 1.2. Editorial.  SUBACK.  Describe the who is the sender and receiver like in the other message types.
OLD
Subscribe acknowledgement.

NEW
Subscribe acknowledgement from the Broker to the Client.

** Section 2.  Editorial.
  The token request and
  response use the token endpoint at the AS, specified for HTTP-based
  interactions in Section 5.8 of the ACE framework
  [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz].

This reference should likely read Section 4 of [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz] as this section included the bullet protocol flow from (A) – (E).

** Section 2.3.  Should it be MQTT messages vs. MQTT packets?  For example, in “… to allow a Client’s future PUBLISH and SUBSCRIBE packets”.

** Section 3.3.  Editorial.  s/token token/token scope which/

[Ballot comment]
** Section 2.

  If the Client is resource-constrained or does not support HTTPS, a
  separate Client Authorization Server may carry out the token request
  on behalf of the Client, and later, onboard the Client with the
  token. 

Appreciating that the CAS is out of scope, I’m trying to understand which of the (A) – (F) interactions are handle by the Client and which would be handled by the CAS which it is used.  Figure 1 is a ambiguous.  (A) and (B) seem like they would be covered by the CAS, but I’m assuming (C) and (D) are the Client after being provisioned with the access token (from A and B).  Is that correct?  If so, it would be helpful to clarify that in the text and/or diagram.

** Section 3.3.
  As a response to the SUBSCRIBE packet, the Broker issues a SUBACK.
  For each Topic Filter, the SUBACK packet includes a return code
  matching the QoS level for the corresponding Topic Filter.  In the
  case of failure, the return code is 0x87, indicating that the Client
  is 'Not authorized'.  A reason code is returned for each Topic
  Filter. 

This may be a detail of MQTT.  Does the explicit use of “not authorized” vs. “not authorized/not found” leak the existence of a topic name to an off-path attacker?  It seems that with “not authorized” semantics, one could try to guess topic name with enumeration, say, try 1: “/topic/is-the-sensitive-project-called-A”, try 2: “/topic/is-the-sensitive-project-called-B”, etc.

Editorial Nits

** Section 1. Editorial. s/The Client-AS and RS-AS/The Client-AS and RS-AS communication/

** Section 1.3.  Editorial.  Chose either the “65535” or “65,535” convention (comma or no comma).  “UTF-8 string” uses the former and “binary data” uses the latter

** Section 1.2. Editorial.  SUBACK.  Describe the who is the sender and receiver like in the other message types.
OLD
Subscribe acknowledgement.

NEW
Subscribe acknowledgement from the Broker to the Client.

** Section 2.  Editorial.
  The token request and
  response use the token endpoint at the AS, specified for HTTP-based
  interactions in Section 5.8 of the ACE framework
  [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz].

This reference should likely read Section 4 of [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz] as this section included the bullet protocol flow from (A) – (E).

** Section 2.3.  Should it be MQTT messages vs. MQTT packets?  For example, in “… to allow a Client’s future PUBLISH and SUBSCRIBE packets”.

** Section 3.3.  Editorial.  s/token token/token scope which/

[Ballot comment]
** Section 2.

  If the Client is resource-constrained or does not support HTTPS, a
  separate Client Authorization Server may carry out the token request
  on behalf of the Client, and later, onboard the Client with the
  token. 

Appreciating that the CAS is out of scope, I’m trying to understand which of the (A) – (F) interactions are handle by the Client and which would be handled by the CAS which it is used.  Figure 1 is a ambiguous.  (A) and (B) seem like they would be covered by the CAS, but I’m assuming (C) and (D) are the Client after being provisioned with the access token (from A and B).  Is that correct?  If so, it would be helpful to clarify that in the text and/or diagram.

** Section 3.3.
  As a response to the SUBSCRIBE packet, the Broker issues a SUBACK.
  For each Topic Filter, the SUBACK packet includes a return code
  matching the QoS level for the corresponding Topic Filter.  In the
  case of failure, the return code is 0x87, indicating that the Client
  is 'Not authorized'.  A reason code is returned for each Topic
  Filter. 

This may be a detail of MQTT.  Does the explicit use of “not authorized” vs. “not authorized/not found” leak the existence of a topic name to an off-path attacker?  It seems that with “not authorized” semantics, one could try to guess topic name with enumeration, say, try 1: “/topic/is-the-sensitive-project-call-A”, try 2: “/topic/is-the-sensitive-project-call-B”, etc.

Editorial Nits

** Section 1. Editorial. s/The Client-AS and RS-AS/The Client-AS and RS-AS communication/

** Section 1.3.  Editorial.  Chose either the “65535” or “65,535” convention (comma or no comma).  “UTF-8 string” uses the former and “binary data” uses the latter

** Section 1.2. Editorial.  SUBACK.  Describe the who is the sender and receiver like in the other message types.
OLD
Subscribe acknowledgement.

NEW
Subscribe acknowledgement from the Broker to the Client.

** Section 2.  Editorial.
  The token request and
  response use the token endpoint at the AS, specified for HTTP-based
  interactions in Section 5.8 of the ACE framework
  [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz].

This reference should likely read Section 4 of [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz] as this section included the bullet protocol flow from (A) – (E).

** Section 2.3.  Should it be MQTT messages vs. MQTT packets?  For example, in “… to allow a Client’s future PUBLISH and SUBSCRIBE packets”.

** Section 3.3.  Editorial.  s/token token/token scope which/

[Ballot comment]
Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more
guidance:

* Term "master"; alternatives might be "active", "central", "initiator",
  "leader", "main", "orchestrator", "parent", "primary", "server".

* Term "his"; alternatives might be "they", "them", "their".

* Term "invalid"; alternatives might be "not valid", "unenforceable", "not
  binding", "inoperative", "illegitimate", "incorrect", "improper",
  "unacceptable", "inapplicable", "revoked", "rescinded".

Thanks to Theresa Enghardt for their General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/-D0Fe7Px8IRU5yIFmngv6SR420c).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

Section 2.1. , paragraph 5, nit:
>    This document follows [RFC7800] for PoP semantics for JWTs (CWTs can
>    also be used).  The PoP token includes a 'cnf' parameter with a

s/can/MAY/ ?

Section 2.2.2. , paragraph 4, nit:
-    DISCONNECT packet as explained below.
+    DISCONNECT packet, as explained below.
+                    +

Section 2. , paragraph 4, nit:
> e RPK case is handled as described in in Section 3.2.1 of the DTLS profile [
>                                    ^^^^^
Possible typo: you repeated a word.

Section 2.2.1. , paragraph 2, nit:
> lient MUST validate a public key from a X.509 certificate or an RPK from the
>                                      ^
Use "an" instead of "a" if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g.
"an article", "an hour".

Section 2.2.1. , paragraph 7, nit:
>  equal to 0, and the token is invalid or the claims cannot be obtained in the
>                                      ^^^
Use a comma before "or" if it connects two independent clauses (unless they are
closely connected and short).

Section 2.2.3. , paragraph 2, nit:
> to an earlier proposal by Fremantle et al [fremantle14]. After sending the C
>                                    ^^^^^
A period is misplaced or missing.

Section 2.2.4.2. , paragraph 3, nit:
>  as shown in Figure 7 and includes the the 8-byte Client nonce, and the signa
>                                    ^^^^^^^
Possible typo: you repeated a word.

Section 2.2.5. , paragraph 3, nit:
> ame or filter in question is either an an exact match to or a subset of at le
>                                    ^^^^^
Possible typo: you repeated a word.

Section 2.4.1. , paragraph 3, nit:
> est for topic "a/b/*", and has a token token permits "a/*", this is a valid s
>                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^
Possible typo: you repeated a word.

Section 10.1. , paragraph 23, nit:
>  broker. * Added a statement that the the broker will disconnect on almost an
>                                  ^^^^^^^
Possible typo: you repeated a word.

Uncited references:
    [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-params], [RFC8422], [RFC7251], and [RFC8705].

Document references draft-ietf-ace-aif-05, but -06 is the latest available
revision.

Document references draft-ietf-ace-pubsub-profile-01, but -04 is the latest
available revision.

These URLs in the document did not return content:
* http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ace-pubsub-profile-01.txt

These URLs in the document can probably be converted to HTTPS:
* http://docs.oasis-open.org/mqtt/mqtt/v5.0/os/mqtt-v5.0-os.html
* http://docs.oasis-open.org/mqtt/mqtt/v3.1.1/mqtt-v3.1.1.html
* http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/SIoT.2014.8

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-15. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

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

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

First, in the TLS Exporter Labels registry on the Transport Layer Security (TLS) Parameters registry page located at:

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

the existing registration for

Value: EXPORTER-ACE-MQTT-Sign-Challenge
DTLS-OK? No
Recommended: No
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Note:

will have its reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

Second, in the application space of the Media Types registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/

a new registration is to be made as follows:

Name: ace+json
Template: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Third, in the ACE Profiles registry on the Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) registry page located at:

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

a new registration is to be made as follows:

Name: mqtt_tls
Description: Profile for delegating Client authentication and authorization using MQTT for the Client and Broker (RS) interactions, and HTTP for the AS interactions. TLS is used for confidentiality and integrity protection and server authentication. Client authentication can be provided either via TLS or using in-band proof-of-possession at the MQTT application layer.
CBOR Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA Question --> Which range in the ACE Profiles registry should this registration come from?

The IANA Functions Operator understands that these three actions are the only ones 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.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Lead IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-03-03):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Daniel Migault , ace-chairs@ietf.org, ace@ietf.org, daniel.migault@ericsson.com, draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile@ietf.org, kaduk@mit.edu
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT)-TLS profile of Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) Framework) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Authentication and Authorization for
Constrained Environments WG (ace) to consider the following document: -
'Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT)-TLS profile of
  Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE)
  Framework'
  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 2022-03-03. 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 specifies a profile for the ACE (Authentication and
  Authorization for Constrained Environments) framework to enable
  authorization in a Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT)-based
  publish-subscribe messaging system.  Proof-of-possession keys, bound
  to OAuth2.0 access tokens, are used to authenticate and authorize
  MQTT Clients.  The protocol relies on TLS for confidentiality and
  MQTT server (broker) authentication.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile/



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

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

The requested type of RFC is standard Track. This is appropriated to provide interoperability. The type is indicate din the title. 

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction.

  This document specifies a profile for the ACE (Authentication and
  Authorization for Constrained Environments) framework to enable
  authorization in an Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT)-based
  publish-subscribe messaging system.  Proof-of-possession keys, bound
  to OAuth2.0 access tokens, are used to authenticate and authorize
  MQTT Clients.  The protocol relies on TLS for confidentiality and
  MQTT server (broker) authentication.


Working Group Summary:

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?

Nothing was special.

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

There are at least two known implementations:
* Implementation using the HiveMQ CE is a Java-based open source MQTT broker that fully supports MQTT 3.x and MQTT 5.  
https://github.com/michaelg9/HiveACEclient  
* The Mosquitto prototype was only v3.1.1: https://github.com/ciseng/ace-mqtt-mosquitto

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Daniel Migault is the shepherd, Ben Kaduk is teh Area Director

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

I reviewed the document and have no special concerns I am considering the document ready.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

No

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

None

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

Yes

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

None

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

The document went through several rounds of reviews. Though I came while the document was already a WG document. I have the impression that the number of reviewers were around 4. 

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise 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.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

nits mentions the lack of the RFC 2119 boilerplate but the boiler template is mentioned in section 1.1

draft-ietf-ace-aif is a normative reference which is appropriated as it defines the data model of MQTT in section 3.

draft-ietf-cose-x509 is a normative reference as it defines the format of the rs_cnf and procedure to check it. 

'MQTT-OASIS-Standard' and 'MQTT-OASIS-Standard-v5' define the MQTT document that is the subject of our document. While our document is mostly focused on an integrating MQTT to ACE, MQTT is defined by OASIS and fields of the protocol are defined in OASIS. I believe these document should be normative.

draft-ietf-ace-pubsub-profile current version is effectively 01 so there might be an error in the nits tool.


idnits 2.16.04

/tmp/draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-10.txt:

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if
    it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords.

    (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the
    ID-Checklist requires).

  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Missing Reference: 'RFC-XXXX' is mentioned on line 1095, but not defined

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft:
    draft-ietf-ace-aif (ref. 'I-D.ietf-ace-aif')

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref.
    'MQTT-OASIS-Standard'

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref.
    'MQTT-OASIS-Standard-v5'

  -- Unexpected draft version: The latest known version of
    draft-ietf-ace-pubsub-profile is -00, but you're referring to -01.


    Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 3 comments (--).

    Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
    the items above.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

NA

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

yes

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

yes. wait the normative document are completed.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

Some are downward normative references as the mention standard that are part of other SDO (OASIS).  See comments related to the nits.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No

(17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

The shepherd checked the requested code points in the document be mentioned in the IANA as well as the procedure for registering these code points followed:

Registration of the 'EXPORTER-ACE-MQTT-Sign-Challenge' in the TLS Exporter Label Registry is described in [RFC8447]. Request has been sent to the tls-reg-review@ietf.org bu Cigdem on 2020 November 1 and approved by Rich and Yoav.

Registration of 'mqtt_tls' is in the ACE OAuth Profile Registry is specified in [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz] and require providing a template that has been added in the IANA section.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

NA

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

rfc nits.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-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 RFC8342?

NA

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

The requested type of RFC is standard Track. This is appropriated to provide interoperability. The type is indicate din the title. 

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction.

  This document specifies a profile for the ACE (Authentication and
  Authorization for Constrained Environments) framework to enable
  authorization in an Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT)-based
  publish-subscribe messaging system.  Proof-of-possession keys, bound
  to OAuth2.0 access tokens, are used to authenticate and authorize
  MQTT Clients.  The protocol relies on TLS for confidentiality and
  MQTT server (broker) authentication.


Working Group Summary:

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?

Nothing was special.

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

There are at least two known implementations:
* Implementation using the HiveMQ CE is a Java-based open source MQTT broker that fully supports MQTT 3.x and MQTT 5.  
https://github.com/michaelg9/HiveACEclient  
* The Mosquitto prototype was only v3.1.1: https://github.com/ciseng/ace-mqtt-mosquitto

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Daniel Migault is the shepherd, Ben Kaduk is teh Area Director

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

I reviewed the document and have no special concerns I am considering the document ready.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

No

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

None

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

Yes

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

None

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

The document went through several rounds of reviews. Though I came while the document was already a WG document. I have the impression that the number of reviewers were around 4. 

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise 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.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

nits mentions the lack of the RFC 2119 boilerplate but the boiler template is mentioned in section 1.1

draft-ietf-ace-aif is a normative reference which is appropriated as it defines the data model of MQTT in section 3.

draft-ietf-cose-x509 is a normative reference as it defines the format of the rs_cnf and procedure to check it. 

'MQTT-OASIS-Standard' and 'MQTT-OASIS-Standard-v5' define the MQTT document that is the subject of our document. While our document is mostly focused on an integrating MQTT to ACE, MQTT is defined by OASIS and fields of the protocol are defined in OASIS. I believe these document should be normative.

draft-ietf-ace-pubsub-profile current version is effectively 01 so there might be an error in the nits tool.


idnits 2.16.04

/tmp/draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-10.txt:

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if
    it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords.

    (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the
    ID-Checklist requires).

  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Missing Reference: 'RFC-XXXX' is mentioned on line 1095, but not defined

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft:
    draft-ietf-ace-aif (ref. 'I-D.ietf-ace-aif')

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref.
    'MQTT-OASIS-Standard'

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref.
    'MQTT-OASIS-Standard-v5'

  -- Unexpected draft version: The latest known version of
    draft-ietf-ace-pubsub-profile is -00, but you're referring to -01.


    Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 3 comments (--).

    Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
    the items above.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

NA

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

yes

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

yes. wait the normative document are completed.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

Some are downward normative references as the mention standard that are part of other SDO (OASIS).  See comments related to the nits.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No

(17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

The shepherd checked the requested code points in the document be mentioned in the IANA as well as the procedure for registering these code points followed:

Registration of the 'EXPORTER-ACE-MQTT-Sign-Challenge' in the TLS Exporter Label Registry is described in [RFC8447]. Request has been sent to the tls-reg-review@ietf.org bu Cigdem on 2020 November 1 and approved by Rich and Yoav.

Registration of 'mqtt_tls' is in the ACE OAuth Profile Registry is specified in [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz] and require providing a template that has been added in the IANA section.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

NA

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

rfc nits.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-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 RFC8342?

NA

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

The requested type of RFC is standard Track. This is appropriated to provide interoperability. The type is indicate din the title. 

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction.

  This document specifies a profile for the ACE (Authentication and
  Authorization for Constrained Environments) framework to enable
  authorization in an Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT)-based
  publish-subscribe messaging system.  Proof-of-possession keys, bound
  to OAuth2.0 access tokens, are used to authenticate and authorize
  MQTT Clients.  The protocol relies on TLS for confidentiality and
  MQTT server (broker) authentication.


Working Group Summary:

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?

Nothing was special.

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

There are at least two known implementations:
* Implementation using the HiveMQ CE is a Java-based open source MQTT broker that fully supports MQTT 3.x and MQTT 5.  
https://github.com/michaelg9/HiveACEclient  
* The Mosquitto prototype was only v3.1.1: https://github.com/ciseng/ace-mqtt-mosquitto

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Daniel Migault is the shepherd, Ben Kaduk is teh Area Director

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

I reviewed the document and have no special concerns I am considering the document ready.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

No

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

None

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

Yes

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

None

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

The document went through several rounds of reviews. Though I came while the document was already a WG document. I have the impression that the number of reviewers were around 4. 

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise 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.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

nits mentions the lack of the RFC 2119 boilerplate but the boiler template is mentioned in section 1.1

draft-ietf-ace-aif is a normative reference which is appropriated as it defines the data model of MQTT in section 3.

draft-ietf-cose-x509 is a normative reference as it defines the format of the rs_cnf and procedure to check it.  It is correct the current version is 08 while the version of teh reference is 07. As the document is normative, this will not make a huge difference.

'MQTT-OASIS-Standard' and 'MQTT-OASIS-Standard-v5' define the MQTT document that is the subject of our document. While our document is mostly focused on an integrating MQTT to ACE, MQTT is defined by OASIS and fields of the protocol are defined in OASIS. I believe these document should be normative.

draft-ietf-ace-pubsub-profile current version is effectively 01 so there might be an error in the nits tool.


idnits 2.16.04

/tmp/draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-09.txt:

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  ** There is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the longest one
    being 1 character in excess of 72.


  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if
    it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords.

    (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the
    ID-Checklist requires).

  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Missing Reference: 'RFC-XXXX' is mentioned on line 1095, but not defined

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft:
    draft-ietf-ace-aif (ref. 'I-D.ietf-ace-aif')

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of
    draft-ietf-cose-x509-07

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref.
    'MQTT-OASIS-Standard'

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref.
    'MQTT-OASIS-Standard-v5'

  -- Unexpected draft version: The latest known version of
    draft-ietf-ace-pubsub-profile is -00, but you're referring to -01.

  -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 7049


    Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 4 comments (--).

    Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
    the items above.


(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

NA

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

yes

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

yes. wait the normative document are completed.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

Some are downward normative references as the mention standard that are part of other SDO (OASIS).  See comments related to the nits.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No

(17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

The shepherd checked the requested code points in the document be mentioned in the IANA as well as the procedure for registering these code points followed:

Registration of the 'EXPORTER-ACE-MQTT-Sign-Challenge' in the TLS Exporter Label Registry is described in [RFC8447]. Request has been sent to the tls-reg-review@ietf.org bu Cigdem on 2020 November 1 and approved by Rich and Yoav.

Registration of 'mqtt_tls' is in the ACE OAuth Profile Registry is specified in [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz] and require providing a template that has been added in the IANA section.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

NA

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

rfc nits.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-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 RFC8342?

NA

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

The requested type of RFC is standard Track. This is appropriated to provide interoperability. The type is indicate din the title. 

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction.

  This document specifies a profile for the ACE (Authentication and
  Authorization for Constrained Environments) framework to enable
  authorization in an Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT)-based
  publish-subscribe messaging system.  Proof-of-possession keys, bound
  to OAuth2.0 access tokens, are used to authenticate and authorize
  MQTT Clients.  The protocol relies on TLS for confidentiality and
  MQTT server (broker) authentication.


Working Group Summary:

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?

Nothing was special.

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

There are at least two known implementations:
* Implementation using the HiveMQ CE is a Java-based open source MQTT broker that fully supports MQTT 3.x and MQTT 5.  
https://github.com/michaelg9/HiveACEclient  
* The Mosquitto prototype was only v3.1.1: https://github.com/ciseng/ace-mqtt-mosquitto

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Daniel Migault is the shepherd, Ben Kaduk is teh Area Director

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

I reviewed the document and have no special concerns I am considering the document ready.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

No

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

None

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

Yes

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

None

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

The document went through several rounds of reviews. Though I came while the document was already a WG document. I have the impression that the number of reviewers were around 4. 

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise 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.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

nits mentions the lack of the RFC 2119 boilerplate but the boiler template is mentioned in section 1.1

draft-ietf-ace-aif is a normative reference which is appropriated as it defines the data model of MQTT in section 3.

draft-ietf-cose-x509 is a normative reference as it defines the format of the rs_cnf and procedure to check it. 

'MQTT-OASIS-Standard' and 'MQTT-OASIS-Standard-v5' define the MQTT document that is the subject of our document. While our document is mostly focused on an integrating MQTT to ACE, MQTT is defined by OASIS and fields of the protocol are defined in OASIS. I believe these document should be normative.




idnits 2.16.04

/tmp/draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-08.txt:

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  ** There is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the longest one
    being 1 character in excess of 72.


  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == Line 526 has weird spacing: '...rotocol  name ...'

  == Line 977 has weird spacing: '...rotocol  name ...'

  == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if
    it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords.

    (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the
    ID-Checklist requires).
  -- The document date (November 1, 2020) is 10 days in the past.  Is this
    intentional?


  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Missing Reference: 'RFC-XXXX' is mentioned on line 1095, but not defined

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft:
    draft-ietf-ace-aif (ref. 'I-D.ietf-ace-aif')

  -- Unexpected draft version: The latest known version of
    draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz is -34, but you're referring to -35.

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft:
    draft-ietf-cose-x509 (ref. 'I-D.ietf-cose-x509')

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref.
    'MQTT-OASIS-Standard'

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref.
    'MQTT-OASIS-Standard-v5'

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 6234

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 8032

  -- Unexpected draft version: The latest known version of
    draft-ietf-ace-pubsub-profile is -00, but you're referring to -01.


    Summary: 5 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 5 comments (--).

    Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
    the items above.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

NA

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

yes

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

yes. wait the normative document are completed.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

Some are downward normative references as the mention standard that are part of other SDO (OASIS).  See comments related to the nits.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No

(17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

The shepherd checked the requested code points in the document be mentioned in the IANA as well as the procedure for registering these code points followed:

Registration of the 'EXPORTER-ACE-MQTT-Sign-Challenge' in the TLS Exporter Label Registry is described in [RFC8447]. Request has been sent to the tls-reg-review@ietf.org bu Cigdem on 2020 November 1 and approved by Rich and Yoav.

Registration of 'mqtt_tls' is in the ACE OAuth Profile Registry is specified in [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz] and require providing a template that has been added in the IANA section.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

NA

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

rfc nits.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-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 RFC8342?

NA

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

The requested type of RFC is standard Track. This is appropriated to provide interoperability. The type is indicate din the title. 

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction.

  This document specifies a profile for the ACE (Authentication and
  Authorization for Constrained Environments) framework to enable
  authorization in an Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT)-based
  publish-subscribe messaging system.  Proof-of-possession keys, bound
  to OAuth2.0 access tokens, are used to authenticate and authorize
  MQTT Clients.  The protocol relies on TLS for confidentiality and
  MQTT server (broker) authentication.


Working Group Summary:

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?

Nothing was special.

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

There are at least two known implementations:
* Implementation using the HiveMQ CE is a Java-based open source MQTT broker that fully supports MQTT 3.x and MQTT 5.  
https://github.com/michaelg9/HiveACEclient  
* The Mosquitto prototype was only v3.1.1: https://github.com/ciseng/ace-mqtt-mosquitto

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Daniel Migault is the shepherd, Ben Kaduk is teh Area Director

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

I reviewed the document and have no special concerns I am considering the document ready.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

No

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

None

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

XXX

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

None

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

The document went through several rounds of reviews. Though I came while the document was already a WG document. I have the impression that the number of reviewers were around 4. 

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise 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.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

XXX

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

NA

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

yes

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

yes. wait the normative document are completed.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

Some are downward normative references as the mention standard that are part of other SDO (OASIS).

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No

(17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

XXX

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

NA

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

rfc nits.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-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 RFC8342?

NA

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

The requested type of RFC is standard Track. This is appropriated to provide interoperability. The type is indicate din the title. 

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction.

  This document specifies a profile for the ACE (Authentication and
  Authorization for Constrained Environments) framework to enable
  authorization in an Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT)-based
  publish-subscribe messaging system.  Proof-of-possession keys, bound
  to OAuth2.0 access tokens, are used to authenticate and authorize
  MQTT Clients.  The protocol relies on TLS for confidentiality and
  MQTT server (broker) authentication.


Working Group Summary:

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?

Nothing was special.

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

XXX

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Daniel Migault is the shepherd, Ben Kaduk is teh Area Director

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

I reviewed the document and have no special concerns I am considering the document ready.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

No

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

None

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

XXX

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

None

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

The document went through several rounds of reviews. Though I came while the document was already a WG document. I have the impression that the number of reviewers were around 4. 

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise 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.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

XXX

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

NA

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

yes

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

yes. wait the normative document are completed.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

Some are downward normative references as the mention standard that are part of other SDO (OASIS).

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No

(17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

XXX

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

NA

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

rfc nits.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-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 RFC8342?

NA