As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
(1) This is requested to be a Proposed Standard. The header of the
document correctly reflects this.
(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:
The OAuth authentication and Authorization for Constrained Devices
provides a message format and framework for moving keys and tokens
between authority servers, clients, and resource servers.
This document provides a set of security services so that the
communication and autthorizations can be performed.
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
The document has been fairly extensively vetted. There are
at least two implementations of a version of the document
prior to the WGLC being done.
Jim Schaad is acting as the Document Shepherd. Benjamin Kaduk
is the Responsible Area Director.
(3) I have read and implemented the protocol in the document. I have done a full
read through the document prior to releasing it as well as double checking
my implementation againist the current document.
(4) I have no concerns with the review of this document. It is expected
that an updated interop test will be run at the Prague Hackathon.
(5) There are no portions of this document that need extra review.
(6) Given the current state of the OSCORE document, some attention may need
to be focused on the method used to add randomness to the key derivation process.
I believe that what is done is sufficent, but others may want to look at it.
(7) All authors have confirmed that all IPR disclosures have been made.
(8) No IPR disclosures have been filed on this document.
(9) This document represents a strong consensus of a small group of people.
Most of the reviews came from me and the authors.
(10) There are not any indications of appeals or extreme discontent.
(11) No ID nits were found in the document.
(12) There is no formal review required.
(13) All references are appropriately normative or informative.
(14) All normative references are either complete or soon to advance
to the IESG
(15) There are no downward normative references.
(16) This document contains all new material and does not modify any
(17) I checked that all items that were setup as being defined in the text
also occured in the registration sections. Went through and verified that
the template for registering new OSCORE Security Context Parameters made sense.
(18) This document creates one new registry:
OSCORE Security Context Parameters Registry - This registry is setup to
require expert review. This registry is similar but not identical in usage
to the currently existing COSE_Key registry. As such a combination of
current DEs for that registry and authors for the OSCORE document
(draft-ietf-core-object-security) would be recommended to act as the DEs
for ths registry.
(19) There are no external reviews or automated checks needed.