Answers to the questions:
> (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?
I believe this document should be an Informational RFC as indicated in the
title page.
> (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 defines a set of hash algorithms that are identified by COSE
Algorithm Identifiers. It also provides two examples of structures for holding
a hash value.
> 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?
The document has had clear working group consensus for publication and it has
been reviewed by a few working group participants since its adoption.
> 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?
John Mattsson has reviewed an early version of the document. Kathleen Moriarty
did a review of a pre-working group last call version of the document. Ludwig
Seitz and Ivaylo Petrov did a review on the working group last call version of
the document. All the review issues have been addressed and no review comments
or issues are currently pending.
> Personnel:
>
> Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Document Shepherd: Ivaylo Petrov (COSE WG chair)
AD: Benjamin Kaduk (Sec AD)
> (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 completed a detailed review of the document. All of my remarks were processed
and there are no remaining open issues.
> (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth
> of the reviews that have been performed?
No, given the number of reviews and the relative shortness of the document, I
believe it has had sufficient reviews.
> (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.
No concerns or issues.
> (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, the authors have confirmed that they are not aware of any IPR.
> (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
> summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
No IPR.
> (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?
From my perspective the WG understands and agrees with the proposed draft
without any other alternatives being provided.
> (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.
From reading the document, there is section "Contributing to this document"
that would need to be removed as indicated in the text. As this section is
meant to be remove by the RFC editor, I believe they should not block the
document from progressing.
ID nits points out that
- there is a reference to a document in the abstract, which should be replaced
with textual description
- two of the internet drafts that this document references have undergone a new
revision
I believe those issues will only require minor editorial changes, which does
not seem as a sufficient reason to delay the progress of the document.
> (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria,
> such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
I am not aware of any formal review criteria that apply to this document. The
hash algorithms for which it defines COSE Algorithm Identifiers have passed
formal review.
> (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?
Only draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct is a work in progress. It is past WGLC
which made this feel acceptable.
> (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.
There are no downward normative references.
> (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 document adds a number of values to COSE Algorithms Registry. For those all
the necessary information is provided.
> (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.
No new IANA registries.
> (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.
There are only two instances of code snippets that are given as examples. There
is no definition of the formal format that they follow and they are left for
interpretation to the reader. The snippets seem compatible with CDDL as
specified by RFC8610 and follow the same format as the snippets in RFC 8152. I
believe a minor editorial change might be needed to explicitly state that, but
this change does not need to delay the progress of this document.
> (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?
No YANG modules are defined by this document.