Hello Sarah, Please find our answers inline below.
In addition to those, please note that we have just submitted a new version -17 of the present document, with one clarifying update in Section 1.1 "Terminology" and two clarifying updates in Section 3 "Format of Scope". The three updates are related to changes made in the approved version -21 of [ACE-KGO], based on the corresponding IESG evaluation review from Mike Bishop and addressed in Sections 3 and 8 of that document, see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ace/ZuhDaBhAeZjwCdEsgsIbe7wfdYw/ Two of those comments about [ACE-KGO] are also relevant and applicable to version -16 of the present document, which was already approved for publication when we received those comments. [ACE-KGO] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-oscore/ Please see below the three updates in question, now incorporated in the latest version -17 of the present document. **Update #1 (Section 1.1)** OLD > The url-path to a group-configuration resource has GROUPNAME as last segment, > with GROUPNAME the invariant group name assigned upon its creation. Building > on the considered url-path of the group-collection resource, this document > uses /manage/GROUPNAME as the url-path of a group-configuration resource; > implementations are not required to use this same construct and can define > their own instead. NEW (emphasis mine) > The url-path to a group-configuration resource has GROUPNAME as last segment, > with GROUPNAME the invariant group name assigned upon its creation. **Aligned > with that, a group name has to be consistent with the semantics of URI path > segments (see Section 3.3 of [RFC3986]).** Building on the considered > url-path of the group-collection resource, this document uses > /manage/GROUPNAME as the url-path of a group-configuration resource; > implementations are not required to use this same construct and can define > their own instead. Rationale: Explicitly state that a group name (referred to as GROUPNAME in the document) is restricted to URI-safe characters. This is just a clarification of something that is effectively already required in the document. **Update #2 (Section 3)** OLD > - Literal pattern: "Toid" is specialized as a CBOR text string, whose value > specifies an exact group name as a literal string. That is, only one specific > group name expressed as a literal text string matches with this group name > pattern. NEW > - Literal pattern: "Toid" is specialized as a CBOR text string, whose value > specifies an exact group name as a literal string. That is, only one specific > group name expressed as a literal text string matches with this group name > pattern. > > Consistent with the definition of group-configuration resource (see Section > 1.1), the specified group name has to be consistent with the semantics of URI > path segments (see Section 3.3 of [RFC3986]). Rationale: Explicitly state that a group name (referred to as GROUPNAME in the document) is restricted to URI-safe characters. This is just a clarification of something that is effectively already required in the document. **Update #3 (Section 3)** OLD > Future specifications that define new permissions on the admin resources at > the Group Manager MUST register a corresponding numeric identifier in the > "Group OSCORE Admin Permissions" registry defined in Section 11.4 of this > document. NEW > Future specifications that define new permissions on the admin resources at > the Group Manager must register a corresponding numeric identifier in the > "Group OSCORE Admin Permissions" registry defined in Section 11.4 of this > document. Rationale: It does not make sense to apply normative requirements to future specifications. Hence, we changed the text to use "must" instead of "MUST". Finally, we have also: * Ensured that CDDL sourcecode snippets are marked as such in the XML file. * Fixed the "Note to RFC Editor" final paragraph in Section 1.2, to be formatted as plain text instead of as a quote. Best, /Marco ________________________________ From: Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 3:45 PM To: Marco Tiloca <[email protected]>; Rikard Höglund <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Francesca Palombini <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Document intake questions about <draft-ietf-ace-oscore-gm-admin-16> has been added to the RFC Editor queue Author(s), Congratulations, your document has been successfully added to the RFC Editor queue! The team at the RFC Production Center (RPC) is looking forward to working with you as your document moves forward toward publication. To help reduce processing time and improve editing accuracy, please respond to the questions below. Please confer with your coauthors (or authors of other documents if your document is in a cluster) as necessary prior to taking action in order to streamline communication. If your document has multiple authors, only one author needs to reply to this message. As you read through the rest of this email: * If you need/want to make updates to your document, we encourage you to make those changes and resubmit to the Datatracker. This allows for the easy creation of diffs, which facilitates review by interested parties (e.g., authors, ADs, doc shepherds). * If you feel no updates to the document are necessary, please reply with any applicable rationale/comments. Please note that the RPC team will not work on your document until we hear from you (that is, your document will remain in AUTH state until we receive a reply). Even if you don't have guidance or don't feel that you need to make any updates to the document, you need to let us know. After we hear from you, your document will start moving through the queue. You will be able to review and approve our updates during AUTH48. Please feel free to contact us with any questions you may have at [email protected]. Thank you! The RPC Team -- 1) As there may have been multiple updates made to the document during Last Call, please review the current version of the document: * Is the text in the Abstract still accurate? * Are the Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments sections current? ==>MT The text in the Abstract is accurate. The content of the sections "Acknowledgments" and "Authors' Addresses" is accurate. <== 2) Please share any style information that could help us with editing your document. For example: * Is your document's format or its terminology based on another document, WG style guide, etc.? If so, please provide a pointer to that information (e.g., "This document's terminology should match DNS terminology in RFC 9499." or "This document uses the style info at <https://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhttpwg.org%2Fadmin%2Feditors%2Fstyle-guide&data=05%7C02%7Cmarco.tiloca%40ri.se%7C9fddd8210bec4fc3541508de8a7d2d39%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C639100467416485170%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=I6auUL7M9DDDZp14LcBDnWVBlGPPD4FG4WlWMIqZvkc%3D&reserved=0>.<https://httpwg.org/admin/editors/style-guide>"). * Is there a general pattern of capitalization or formatting of terms that editors can follow (e.g., "Field names should have initial capitalization." or "Parameter names should be in double quotes." or "<tt/> should be used for token names." etc.)? ==>MT We can think of the following points. - Format: there is a conceptual and structural correspondence between some sections of the present document and some sections of draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-oscore. This especially holds for: - Section 3 "Format of Scope" of the present document and Section 3 "Format of Scope" of the other document (the former builds on and extend the data model defined in the latter). - Section 7 "ACE Groupcomm Parameters" of the present document and Section 12 "ACE Groupcomm Parameters" of the other document. - Section 8 "ACE Groupcomm Error Identifiers" of the present document and Section 13 "ACE Groupcomm Error Identifiers" of the other document. - Terminology: see Section 1.1. This document largely uses the terminology from RFC 9200, RFC 7252, and RFC 8613, as well as from draft-ietf-core-groupcomm-bis, draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm, draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-oscore (also in the same cluster C564). - Capitalization generally follows the document from which it is imported (if imported). See, for example, terms imported from RFC 8613, draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm, and draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-oscore. Some terms defined in RFC 9200 use a different capitalization, e.g., "Client" and "Resource Server" are used in their uppercase version. This is consistent with how those terms are used in draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-oscore, which in turn aligns with RFC 9594 that it builds on. In such cases, we think that it is more appropriate for this document to use the same capitalization (uppercase version). Finally, the word "Administrator" is also used in its uppercase version, consistent with the same choice for "Group Manager". - Some words are surrounded by single quotes (i.e., 'foo'), when referring to a parameter within group configurations or within a message. E.g., see 'group_mode', 'group_name', etc. when referring to such parameters within exchanged messages. This is consistent with draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-oscore, which in turn builds on RFC 9594. - Letters in hexadecimal notation are lowercase. <== 3) Please carefully review the entries and their URLs in the References section with the following in mind. Note that we will update as follows unless we hear otherwise at this time: * References to obsoleted RFCs will be updated to point to the current RFC on the topic in accordance with Section 4.8.6 of RFC 7322 (RFC Style Guide). * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be updated to point to the replacement I-D. * References to documents from other organizations that have been superseded will be updated to their superseding version. Note: To check for outdated RFC and I-D references, you can use idnits <https://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fauthor-tools.ietf.org%2Fidnits&data=05%7C02%7Cmarco.tiloca%40ri.se%7C9fddd8210bec4fc3541508de8a7d2d39%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C639100467416512768%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=tjJgql59KHPZSRuYWIV1tdmpuRVGsDodJNJNhRcGT1U%3D&reserved=0<https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits>>. You can also help the IETF Tools Team by testing idnits3 <https://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fauthor-tools.ietf.org%2Fidnits3%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cmarco.tiloca%40ri.se%7C9fddd8210bec4fc3541508de8a7d2d39%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C639100467416530816%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=UowMFCSPyFYlrC87kQGmOlbCHPOd9KoX3NyMycM1%2B6k%3D&reserved=0<https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits3/>> with your document and reporting any issues to them. ==>MT There is one reference to an obsoleted RFC, i.e., RFC 6347. This is intentional: Section 1.1 of this document mentions both DTLS 1.2 (RFC 6347) and DTLS 1.3 (RFC 9147) as possible versions of DTLS that can be used in the DTLS transport profile of ACE (RFC 9202). Therefore, please keep both the reference to RFC 6347 and the reference to RFC 9147 obsoleting the former. <== 4) Is there any text that requires special handling? For example: * Are there any sections that were contentious when the document was drafted? * Are any sections that need to be removed before publication marked as such (e.g., Implementation Status sections (per RFC 7942)). * Are there any instances of repeated text/sections that should be edited the same way? ==>MT We do not identify sections that have been contentious. Appendix B "CDDL Model" and Appendix C "Document Updates" have to be removed, as noted in their first line. Before Appendix B can be removed, the actions described in the last paragraph of Section 1.2 "Notations" need to be performed. The following sections intentionally share similarities in structure and style, which is good to preserve: * Sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.2. * Sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2. * Sections 6.1-6.8. * Sections 7 and 8. * Sections 11.1-11.3. <== 5) This document uses one or more of the following text styles. Are these elements used consistently? * fixed width font (<tt/> or `) * italics (<em/> or *) * bold (<strong/> or **) ==>MT We believe so. That should be limited to <tt/>, e.g.: when indicating the CBOR simple value null, true, or false; or when denoting endpoints (resources) such as /token at the AS or /authz-info at the RS. <== 6) This document contains sourcecode: * Does the sourcecode validate? * Some sourcecode types (e.g., YANG) require certain references and/or text in the Security Considerations section. Is this information correct? * Is the sourcecode type indicated in the XML? (See information about types: https://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Frpc%2Fwiki%2Fdoku.php%3Fid%3Dsourcecode-types&data=05%7C02%7Cmarco.tiloca%40ri.se%7C9fddd8210bec4fc3541508de8a7d2d39%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C639100467416548144%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=9NDQjzxadrLWAslVBfTM2u8EImxyXmbecFw8iUf4ub4%3D&reserved=0.)<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types> ==>MT The document contains snippets of sourcecode in CDDL and CBOR diagnostic notation. In the XML, they are all correctly indicated as such, see the "sourcecode" element, with type="cddl" or type="cbor-diag". The snippets have been successfully validated using the online tools at https://cddl.anweiss.tech/ and https://cbor.me/ To the best of our knowledge, we do not have sourcecode types that require certain references and/or text in the "Security Considerations" section. <== 7) This document contains SVG. What tool did you use to make the svg? The RPC cannot update SVG diagrams, so please ensure that: * the SVG figures match the ASCII art used in the text output as closely as possible, and * the figures fit on the pages of the PDF output. ==>MT We used aasvg, as automatically invoked by the toolchain at https://github.com/martinthomson/i-d-template/ that we have regularly used. The only SVG figure (Figure 1 in Section 2.1) matches the ASCII art used in the text output, and it fits into a single page of the PDF output. <== 8) This document is part of Cluster 564: https://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fcluster_info.php%3Fcid%3DC564&data=05%7C02%7Cmarco.tiloca%40ri.se%7C9fddd8210bec4fc3541508de8a7d2d39%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C639100467416565053%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=EsVGCbBNmsdH5Dv6Bjj5YotfFGZa2XA4Nc0I1EL1v0A%3D&reserved=0<https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C564> * To help the reader understand the content of the cluster, is there a document in the cluster that should be read first? Next? If so, please provide the order and we will provide RFC numbers for the documents accordingly. If order is not important, please let us know. * Is there any text that has been repeated within the cluster document that should be edited in the same way (for instance, parallel introductory text or Security Considerations)? * For more information about clusters, see https://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fabout%2Fclusters%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cmarco.tiloca%40ri.se%7C9fddd8210bec4fc3541508de8a7d2d39%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C639100467416581085%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=VEn8%2B02%2ByoJ2dMuOyWcURVLxH9iB9UwHHdJz0zwN2%2BI%3D&reserved=0<https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/clusters/> * For a list of all current clusters, see: https://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fall_clusters.php&data=05%7C02%7Cmarco.tiloca%40ri.se%7C9fddd8210bec4fc3541508de8a7d2d39%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C639100467416597444%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=BQVrRa9PZ%2F6KrYjeFiWv4NHUA2%2Fhy%2B10OZ0af8uAFGU%3D&reserved=0<http://www.rfc-editor.org/all_clusters.php> ==>MT It is way more natural that one first reads the other three documents [1][2][3] in the cluster, and then the present document [4]. If we define N_x as the RFC number for the document [x] in the cluster, we believe that the following is preferable: N_1 < N_2 < N_3 < N_4. Ideally, the following is additionally preferable: * N_2 = N_1 + 1 * N_4 = N_3 + 1 Similar considerations were provided when replying to the intake questions about [1], [2], and [3]. We do not think that there is repeated text across the two documents in the cluster. [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-core-groupcomm-bis/ [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm/ [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-oscore/ [4] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ace-oscore-gm-admin/ <== 9) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this document? ==>MT Not really. Thanks! <== > On Mar 13, 2026, at 3:52?PM, [email protected] wrote: > > Author(s), > > Your document draft-ietf-ace-oscore-gm-admin-16, which has been approved for > publication as > an RFC, has been added to the RFC Editor queue > <https://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fcurrent_queue.php&data=05%7C02%7Cmarco.tiloca%40ri.se%7C9fddd8210bec4fc3541508de8a7d2d39%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C639100467416613602%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=p%2BVCeYVy9WqUjpiIiddLswCvpSljoaFWScSXpbP3kCE%3D&reserved=0<https://www.rfc-editor.org/current_queue.php>>. > > If your XML file was submitted using the I-D submission tool > <https://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fsubmit%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cmarco.tiloca%40ri.se%7C9fddd8210bec4fc3541508de8a7d2d39%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C639100467416629769%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=btPUg%2BU0FQjcvHX9IVqmXCH3cCgqKw07f%2BOR6Ry3%2FjY%3D&reserved=0<https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/>>, > we have already retrieved it > and have started working on it. > > If you did not submit the file via the I-D submission tool, or > if you have an updated version (e.g., updated contact information), > please send us the file at this time by attaching it > in your reply to this message and specifying any differences > between the approved I-D and the file that you are providing. > > You will receive a separate message from us asking for style input. > Please respond to that message. When we have received your response, > your document will then move through the queue. The first step that > we take as your document moves through the queue is converting it to > RFCXML (if it is not already in RFCXML) and applying the formatting > steps listed at > <https://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fpubprocess%2Fhow-we-update%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cmarco.tiloca%40ri.se%7C9fddd8210bec4fc3541508de8a7d2d39%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C639100467416645770%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=VKFqc%2BOqHD0ShdyTKYZ7FWyLxxcNLZvlDuQ5cwB2d2w%3D&reserved=0<https://www.rfc-editor.org/pubprocess/how-we-update/>>. > Next, we will edit for clarity and apply the style guide > (<https://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fstyleguide%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cmarco.tiloca%40ri.se%7C9fddd8210bec4fc3541508de8a7d2d39%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C639100467416663753%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=OHCn3uwBaoNLiQg5troezoJwOa38oFbb2Kk%2BfZt9OlM%3D&reserved=0<https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/>>). > > You can check the status of your document at > <https://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fcurrent_queue.php&data=05%7C02%7Cmarco.tiloca%40ri.se%7C9fddd8210bec4fc3541508de8a7d2d39%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C639100467416680824%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=POpqbVn0BY6%2BkUHDx8LMsUeRZPuHNcqOH4pBlFdwvnU%3D&reserved=0<https://www.rfc-editor.org/current_queue.php>>. > > You will receive automatic notifications as your document changes > queue state (for more information about these states, please see > <https://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fabout%2Fqueue%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cmarco.tiloca%40ri.se%7C9fddd8210bec4fc3541508de8a7d2d39%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C639100467416695987%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=r5sv4wCR8yWXcDbYjeOfHdZ7idd3niCCW8NtO0q2EkM%3D&reserved=0<https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/queue/>>). > When we have completed > our edits, we will move your document to AUTH48 state and ask you > to perform a final review of the document. > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > Thank you. > > The RFC Editor Team >
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
