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) 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 it should be a Proposed Standard.
Currently not 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:
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
This document specifies the conventions for using the HSS/LMS hash-based
signature algorithm with the CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)
syntax. The HSS/LMS algorithm is one form of hash-based digital signature;
it is described in RFC 8554.
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 undergone 1 revision since WG last call. This revision was
needed to address comments from the last call and to update a reference to
a draft that has since been published.
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, 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?
I am not aware of current implementations. As this document specifies
conventions for using HSS/LMS hash-based signature algorithm with COSE that
are needed by other working groups. The lack of implementations therefore
seems acceptable to me.
Jim Schaad and John Mattsson did an in-depth reviews and had no substantive
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
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 COSE WG Chair (Ivaylo Petrov) has reviewed the document and believes it is ready for publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
(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
(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
(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.
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
(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?
My feeling is that 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.)
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
ID nits mostly concerned code snippet formatting and references that were
considered downward normative reference by the tool (discussed separately).
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Does not have any formal review criterias, but the algorithms for which it
provides conventions for usage with COSE has passed formal review.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
Yes, in my opinion all the normative references are really needed in order to
understandd the document and all the informative ones give more context for
better understanding, but are not strictly necessary for understanding the
(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?
None of the normative references are work in progress or otherwise in an
(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.
* RFC 8554 is an infomrational document, but I consider it an acceptable
downref as CFRG publishes only informational crypto document.
* SHS is a reference to a document that comes outside of the IETF, namely
from NIST. For that reason the tools consider it a downward normative
reference. I consider it an acceptable normative reference.
(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.
(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 5226).
The document adds a value to COSE Algorithms Registry and a value to COSE Key
Types Registry. For those all the needed 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 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, etc.