Thanks for the shepherd review, Michael.
I know of no IPR that pertains to this specification.
-- Mike
From: Michael P1 <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 2, 2026 8:06 AM
To: Karen ODonoghue <[email protected]>; JOSE WG <[email protected]>;
[email protected]
Subject: [jose] Re: WGLC: draft-ietf-jose-hpke-encrypt-15 (Ends 2026-02-11)
Hi All,
I have drafted the shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-jose-hpke-encrypt, which is
included below. Please do let me know if you have any comments.
Authors - please also treat this as a prompt for IPR disclosures, as per
question 12 below.
Thanks,
Michael
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*
Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.
Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.
## Document History
1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
The document has received reviews on mailing lists and GitHub from a range of
individuals. Thorough review was prompted by a first WGLC in June 2025, which
did not pass but led to a number of issues being raised and rectified. Broad
agreement was reached during the second WGLC in February 2026. There has been
suggestion to include PQC algorithms in this draft, but broad agreement to do
that in a separate draft.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
Some points involved deep discussion, including the formation of a design team.
These were settled and agreed upon without controversy.
3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
so, please summarize 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 threats of appeal
4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?
Yes, mailing list discussion highlights multiple interoperable implementations.
## Additional Reviews
5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.
Yes, the document is closely aligned with a corresponding draft in the COSE WG.
The WGLC's were run concurrently to ensure consistent review from both WGs. The
HPKE WG also provided review earlier in the development of the document.
6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Not required.
7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?
N/A
8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
N/A
## Document Shepherd Checks
9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
Yes, the document is clearly written (including a glossary of terms), complete,
correct, and ready to be handed to the responsible AD.
10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?
This draft focuses on considerations highlighted by the Security Area and
includes this discussion in the Security Considerations section. No further
reviews are required.
11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
[Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
This document is requesting Proposed Standard publication. This consistent with
the other JOSE specifications and is accurate in Datatracker.
12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.
Post sent to mailing list as part of shepherd review
13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.
Yes, they have. There are 5 authors at time of writing.
14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
One nit with a reference as a later version (-22) exists of
draft-ietf-cose-hpke-21. These drafts are proceeding through WGLC concurrently,
so this can be rectified.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
References are correct.
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
All normative references are freely available.
17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
list them.
None
18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?
Normative reference to
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-hpke-hpke-02. This draft has
been through WGLC but is being held to publish with
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hpke-pq/, which itself is waiting
on drafts from CFRG.
Discussion of timelines are on HPKE mailing list
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hpke/5bCbbTB5wkgtB9wjCaufBsdAMpk/
19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
This specification updates RFC 7516. This is highlighted in the title,
abstract, introduction, and a standalone section to state the changes.
20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).
The IANA Considerations section is consistent with the rest of the document and
complete. IANA registries have been identified. Contents, procedures and
reasonable name are included and agreed upon by WG.
21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
Not required.
From: Karen ODonoghue <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf
Of Karen ODonoghue
Sent: 02 March 2026 03:18
To: JOSE WG <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: [jose] Re: WGLC: draft-ietf-jose-hpke-encrypt-15 (Ends 2026-02-11)
JOSE WG Members,
Thank you all for your your reviews of the document and your input into this
Working Group Last Call.
The chairs have determined that there is consensus to proceed with the
publication of this document. The document has now been forwarded to the IESG.
For those who commented during the WGLC process, please review to ensure your
comments were appropriately addressed.
Regards,
JOSE Chairs
_______________________________________________
jose mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
