(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?
draft-ietf-dice-profile-13.txt is a Standards Track specification.
The intented status is indicated at the header page. The specification
defines different TLS/DTLS profiles for use with Internet of Things
(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:
A common design pattern in Internet of Things (IoT) deployments is
the use of a constrained device that collects data via sensor or
controls actuators for use in home automation, industrial control
systems, smart cities and other IoT deployments.
This document defines a Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram
TLS (DTLS) 1.2 profile that offers communications security for this
data exchange thereby preventing eavesdropping, tampering, and
message forgery. The lack of communication security is a common
vulnerability in Internet of Things products that can easily be
solved by using these well-researched and widely deployed Internet
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
There was no controversy about this document.
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?
The document has been reviewed by various DICE working group
participants. Due to the nature of the document additional
review from the security community is essential.
Various implementations of embedded TLS stacks exist on the market
(open source as well as closed source implementations) that
implement a subset of the functionality defined in the specification.
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
The responsible area director for DICE and for this document iks
(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
Zach Shelby is the document shepherd. Detailed reviews during the
lifetime of the document have been done by the shepherd.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No, the document has gone through several iterations
due to review comments from various working group members. The
last few revisions and related have resulted in only minor editorial improvements.
(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
The document would benefit from further security reviews.
(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
There are no concerns with this document.
(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 any and all appropriate IPR disclosures have been filed.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
No IPR disclosures have been filed.
(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?
This document has wide working group support, and was the main focus
of the DICE charter.
(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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
The shepherd checked the document for nits. All identified problems have
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No such formal reviews are required by this document.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
Yes. All references are separated into informative and normative.
(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, there are two documents that are still in draft state:
Santesson, S. and H. Tschofenig, "Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Cached Information Extension", draft-ietf-tls-
cached-info-19 (work in progress), March 2015.
Bhargavan, K., Delignat-Lavaud, A., Pironti, A., Langley,
A., and M. Ray, "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Session
Hash and Extended Master Secret Extension", draft-ietf-
tls-session-hash-05 (work in progress), April 2015.
[I-D.ietf-tls-session-hash] has been submitted to the IESG for
publication and [I-D.ietf-tls-cached-info] will be submitted to the
(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 various downward references in this document.
The following specifications are non-IETF documents:
[EUI64] "GUIDELINES FOR 64-BIT GLOBAL IDENTIFIER (EUI-64)
REGISTRATION AUTHORITY", April 2010,
[GSM-SMS] ETSI, "3GPP TS 23.040 V7.0.1 (2007-03): 3rd Generation
Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Core
Network and Terminals; Technical realization of the Short
Message Service (SMS) (Release 7)", March 2007.
[WAP-WDP] Wireless Application Protocol Forum, "Wireless Datagram
Protocol", June 2001.
This specification is an informational RFC:
[RFC7251] McGrew, D., Bailey, D., Campagna, M., and R. Dugal, "AES-
CCM Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) Cipher Suites for
TLS", RFC 7251, June 2014.
(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.
This document will not change the status of any other RFC.
(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).
This specification does not require actions by IANA.
(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.
(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.
There are no formal languages used in this specification.