Hello Sarah, Thanks for the intake questions.
Please find our answers inline below. Best, /Marco ________________________________ From: Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2026 8:45 PM To: Marco Tiloca <[email protected]>; Francesca Palombini <[email protected]> Cc: Rikard Höglund <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Document intake questions about <draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-oscore-21> 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%7C51e3f0c4e42d4cd2a99408de845dc3f2%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C639093735450532632%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=J%2F6RfDoZxtBO4Srywsb97%2FYHqrDSand0T4wbBHulQqw%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 correspondence between some sections of this document and some sections of RFC 9594, of which this document is an application profile. - Terminology: see Section 1.1. This document largely uses the terminology from RFC 9200, RFC 9594, RFC 7252, RFC 8613, and draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm (also in the same cluster C564). As noted in Section 1.1, the term "monitor" used in this document is equivalent to (but intentionally different from) the term "silent server" used in draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm. - "nonce" vs. "challenge": during IESG evaluation, an inaccurate use of the words "nonce" and "challenge" emerged and was fixed in this document, which now uses the two words appropriately and consistently. As a warning, this contrasts with some inaccurate uses of those words in RFC 9594, where **some** sentences should have used "challenge" instead of "nonce" or of "dedicated nonce". - Capitalization generally follows the document from which it is imported (if imported). See, for example, terms imported from RFC 8613, RFC9594, and draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm. Some terms defined in RFC 9200 use a different capitalization in RFC 9594, e.g., "Client" and "Resource Server" are used in their uppercase version. In such cases, we think that it is more appropriate for this document to use the same capitalization used in RFC 9594. - Some words are surrounded by single quotes (i.e., 'foo'), when referring to a parameter within a message. E.g., see 'control_uri', 'key', 'ms', etc. when referring to such parameters within exchanged messages. This is consistent with 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%7C51e3f0c4e42d4cd2a99408de845dc3f2%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C639093735450555994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3gL5TKCYKs9h46FbzBCHdcN2vXLeDi4xE9k2YgIqzHE%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%7C51e3f0c4e42d4cd2a99408de845dc3f2%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C639093735450572687%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=6mIxSplqAu6qTf77uk%2FLlNqvzlcVzGtQDK6Q5hZRsiM%3D&reserved=0<https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits3/>> with your document and reporting any issues to them. ==>MT There are two references to obsoleted RFCs, i.e., RFC 5246 and RFC 6347. This is intentional: Section 6.1.1 of this document describes specific behavior for the case where DTLS 1.2 (RFC 6347) or TLS 1.2 (RFC 5246) is used. This is admitted by the DTLS profile of ACE (RFC 9202) and its corresponding update (RFC 9430). Therefore, please keep the references to RFC 5246 and RFC 6347, as well as the references to RFC 8446 and RFC 9147 obsoleting those. The current reference [NIST-800-56A] from another organization should already be up-to-date. As announced at [0], NIST has recently decided to produce a new version of that specification, but the timeline for such an update is not clear to us. [0] https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2026/01/nist-update-special-publication-800-56a-and-revise-800-56c <== 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 C "CDDL Model" and Appendix D "Document Updates" have to be removed, as noted in their first line. Before Appendix C 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 5.3.1 and 5.3.2. * Sections 8.1-8.4 and corresponding subsections. * Sections 9.1-9.11 and corresponding subsections. * Sections 12 and 13. * Sections 14.1-14.3. * Sections 17.1-17.11. * Appendices A.1 and A.2. * Appendices B.1 and B.2. <== 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/>, when indicating the CBOR simple value null, true, or false. <== 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%7C51e3f0c4e42d4cd2a99408de845dc3f2%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C639093735450589519%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=syCmBJDkltVA%2FQRzprriM65eJDy0gPInNi0VB8vbzVk%3D&reserved=0.)<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types> ==>MT The document contains five snippets of sourcecode. In the XML, they are all correctly indicated as such, see the "sourcecode" element, with type="cddl". This sourcecode has been successfully validated using the online tool at https://cddl.anweiss.tech/ 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 SVG figures match the ASCII art used in the text output, and they all fit 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%7C51e3f0c4e42d4cd2a99408de845dc3f2%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C639093735450605584%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=2BvXYf0BJLOuAcRd%2B%2FxncyOctuIBlRsVtTi3um%2Fe6hs%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%7C51e3f0c4e42d4cd2a99408de845dc3f2%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C639093735450621485%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5foaUtev8LNAoEG7%2BBiPDv4hkrFutqNesRornFzWZgc%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%7C51e3f0c4e42d4cd2a99408de845dc3f2%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C639093735450640208%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=2%2FGT8WPjhiXVxP4Sb0r0gCE8F8fPMdSFt6BU3Wvh0mw%3D&reserved=0<http://www.rfc-editor.org/all_clusters.php> ==>MT It is way more natural that one first reads the other two documents [1][2] in the cluster, and then the present document [3]. (Similar considerations about [1] and [2] were provided when replying to the corresponding intake questions) Also, it is way more natural that one reads the further document [4] in the cluster after having read the present document [3]. 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 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 17, 2026, at 2:39 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > Author(s), > > Your document draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-oscore-21, 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%7C51e3f0c4e42d4cd2a99408de845dc3f2%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C639093735450656636%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=GY3jP%2Fd69E2rbCkwzOrJOLOwuN7uDjlVfrB8VCSQRO8%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%7C51e3f0c4e42d4cd2a99408de845dc3f2%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C639093735450672641%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Wl%2FZtEitFZ8GuKzyMkB9EeqVy%2BBgsGi%2FTPmaiVd0b5M%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%7C51e3f0c4e42d4cd2a99408de845dc3f2%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C639093735450688571%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=T1IgxU0rjMODlSqah0NrBvJZBWmDdyXzTB5shbwo07M%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%7C51e3f0c4e42d4cd2a99408de845dc3f2%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C639093735450704509%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=biPtdTrx6w8DsutAhQcB6MFf4o4Kve4e%2B3RGlo7jbxI%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%7C51e3f0c4e42d4cd2a99408de845dc3f2%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C639093735450720618%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=JIV5%2FPUG%2FrCKDI3cd8qG99TRgvuuUwZf6ZBc0l2ANWE%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%7C51e3f0c4e42d4cd2a99408de845dc3f2%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C639093735450736359%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=jiga3foVjgfDDd9MHB0EAp36Q1osp2t9WOMFBHx6oSc%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]
