[auth48] Re: Document intake questions about <draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-28>

[Marco Tiloca <[e-mail]>]

Hello Sarah,

Thanks for your mail!

Please find our replies inline below.

Best,
/Marco (for the author team)

________________________________
From: Sarah Tarrant <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 3, 2026 11:12 PM
To: Marco Tiloca <[e-mail]>; Göran Selander <[e-mail]>; Francesca Palombini <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; Rikard Höglund <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Document intake questions about <draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-28>

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
[e-mail].

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 abstract and the "Acknowledgments" section look good.

As to the "Authors' Addresses" section:

* Please remove the following two lines from the entries of Marco Tiloca and Rikard Höglund:

  Isafjordsgatan 22
  SE-16440 Stockholm Kista

* Please remove the following two lines from the entries of Göran Selander, Francesca Palombini, and John Preuß Mattsson:

  Torshamnsgatan 23
  SE-16440 Stockholm Kista

<==


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?
If so, please provide a pointer to that document (e.g., this document's
terminology should match DNS terminology in RFC 9499).
* Is there a pattern of capitalization or formatting of terms? (e.g., field names
should have initial capitalization; parameter names should be in double quotes;
<tt/> should be used for token names; etc.)

==>MT

We can think of the following points.

- Format: to the best of our knowledge, it is not based on an existing document. There is a conceptual correspondence between some sections of the present document and some sections of RFC 8613.
- Terminology: see Section 1.1. The terminology of RFC 7252 and of RFC 8613 is key here.
- Capitalization generally follows the document from which it is imported (if imported). See, for examples, terms imported from RFC 8613.
- "Option" is capitalized when used together with the name of a CoAP option and when referring to CoAP Options. (RFC 7252 does mostly the same)
- Terms that we introduce are capitalized when they identify parameters or keying material (e.g., "Pairwise Sender Key", "parameter Authentication Credential Format"). Notably, "Group Manager" is also capitalized. Other new terms used in plain prose are usually not capitalized (e.g., "keying material", "silent server", "group mode", "pairwise mode"). Hopefully, the current text is consistently using capitalization as intended.
- Some words are surrounded by single quotes (i.e., 'foo'), when referring to a parameter within a message. E.g., see 'kid context', 'kid', and 'Partial IV' when referring to such parameters in CoAP request/response messages or in a COSE message.
- Letters in hexadecimal notation are lowercase.

<==


3) Please review the entries in the References section carefully 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%7Ce4b4fbd73e404b14065a08de637165d2%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C639057535872472099%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3N0Ds9%2Faf2jxaASgIPk7kiae%2FL%2BKPLdiGucsKXlCaG8%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%7Ce4b4fbd73e404b14065a08de637165d2%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C639057535872493909%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=jM07fwPGUMkjP1nqGCF3ASqtUV2TPt5GqhbWvsZ8ZXk%3D&reserved=0<https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits3/>>
with your document and reporting any issues to them.

==>MT

The current references do not include an obsoleted RFC or a replaced Internet Draft.

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.

Section 13 "Implementation Status" and Appendix E "Document Updates" have to be removed, as noted in their first line.

As noted at the beginning of Section 13, removing that section should be followed by removing RFC 7942 from the list of references.

Sections 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 intentionally have a similar structure, which is good to preserve.

<==


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%7Ce4b4fbd73e404b14065a08de637165d2%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C639057535872509582%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=dWAWx7XdrAReL5dSQNXIwT6QA5roWZKpgfLnwRt%2BXRQ%3D&reserved=0.)<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types>

==>MT

The document contains the following six snippets of sourcecode.

* Section 3.4 (1 instance)

  Figure 2 consists of CDDL sourcecode, which has been validated using the online tool at https://cddl.anweiss.tech/

  In the XML, the sourcecode is correctly indicated as such, see the "artwork" element including type="CDDL". Not sure whether "CDDL" is equivalent to "cddl" in the official list of sourcecode types. (Also not sure if and how the "sourcecode" element should also be used)

* Section 4.2 (1 instance)

  Within the third bullet point, there is CDDL sourcecode for the array info. This sourcecode has been validated using the online tool at https://cddl.anweiss.tech/

  In the XML, the sourcecode is correctly indicated as such, see the "sourcecode" element, with type="CDDL". Not sure whether "CDDL" is equivalent to "cddl" in the official list of sourcecode types.

* Section 4.3.1 (2 instances)

  Within the first and third bullet point, CBOR diagnostic notation is used. This has been validated using the online tool at https://cbor.me/

  In the XML, this is currently not indicated. In both instances, the "artwork" element should include type="cbor-diag". (Not sure if and how the "sourcecode" element should also be used)

* Section 4.3.2 (2 instances)

  Within the first and third bullet point, CBOR diagnostic notation is used. This has been validated using the online tool at https://cbor.me/

  In the XML, this is currently not indicated. In both instances, the "artwork" element should include type="cbor-diag". (Not sure if and how the "sourcecode" element should also be used)


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 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%7Ce4b4fbd73e404b14065a08de637165d2%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C639057535872524802%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=FCrxwULTg2xaVu4%2FOtydvaKS88KucdPjlbGiFlMs0vI%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%7Ce4b4fbd73e404b14065a08de637165d2%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C639057535872540044%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=51JtFTPKPECORDhSxE%2FeDqB7XlWpQZk0sl2WdJ%2FdhPE%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%7Ce4b4fbd73e404b14065a08de637165d2%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C639057535872558814%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=XQ%2BiIDR%2Fyyypnpss6SOdJQIFcd0m1kLpuFSGO2L0hUg%3D&reserved=0<http://www.rfc-editor.org/all_clusters.php>

==>MT

Although it is not crucial, it feels more natural that one first reads the other document in the cluster (i.e., draft-ietf-core-groupcomm-bis) as the "message transfer document", and then the present document as the associated "security document".

So, if possible, it is preferable that the present document gets an RFC number Y greater than the RFC number X assigned to draft-ietf-core-groupcomm-bis-RFC-to-be. Ideally, Y = X + 1.

We do not think that there is repeated text across the two documents in the cluster.

<==


8) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for editing in kramdown-rfc?
If so, please let us know and provide a self-contained kramdown-rfc file. For more
information about this experiment, see:
https://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Frpc%2Fwiki%2Fdoku.php%3Fid%3Dpilot_test_kramdown_rfc&data=05%7C02%7Cmarco.tiloca%40ri.se%7Ce4b4fbd73e404b14065a08de637165d2%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C639057535872574969%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=bz%2BhJjXBgIJzuzWhj2uNgnA4Q2TEcnaC2jEbUt3jD%2Bg%3D&reserved=0<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc>.

==>MT

Yes, we would like to participate.

You can extract the markdown source (with the includes performed) from an RFCXML directly submitted as such in the following way:

kramdown-rfc-extract-markdown draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-28.xml > draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-28.md

Please find attached a markdown file extracted this way.

<==


9) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for completing AUTH48 in
GitHub? If so, please let us know. For more information about this experiment,
see:
https://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Frpc%2Fwiki%2Fdoku.php%3Fid%3Drpc-github-phase-0-pilot-test&data=05%7C02%7Cmarco.tiloca%40ri.se%7Ce4b4fbd73e404b14065a08de637165d2%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C639057535872590741%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=FwYuSVa5w2KtP1dmTCkbYY%2BL1vElvMq6Y0I2v7lctj0%3D&reserved=0<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=rpc-github-phase-0-pilot-test>.

==>MT

Yes.

<==


10) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this
document?

==>MT

Not really. Thanks!

<==


> On Feb 3, 2026, at 4:07 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>
> Author(s),
>
> Your document draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-28, 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%7Ce4b4fbd73e404b14065a08de637165d2%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C639057535872606119%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=sNEmsGwZr5yn9GgrGOMcCk7vAPYVz3nllDyUUX5CsYA%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%7Ce4b4fbd73e404b14065a08de637165d2%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C639057535872621337%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=asfMuPRfMPszkeYgkH2yL0uckS%2BfAUbK8SBdXZxM%2FBA%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%7Ce4b4fbd73e404b14065a08de637165d2%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C639057535872636778%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=jrqHf6EGAsuliat9FLBOryktAreji9xe5RBSIaGVjXI%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%7Ce4b4fbd73e404b14065a08de637165d2%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C639057535872652221%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=i10o2P7urzDcab4mLBr1ZGh5Tv9lUJlHnnJXHBUyvwc%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%7Ce4b4fbd73e404b14065a08de637165d2%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C639057535873020691%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2BPSOTFm8jaGPkWPI%2BwTS7RX5KrQAHAyt9HFYnMv%2BWXs%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%7Ce4b4fbd73e404b14065a08de637165d2%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C639057535873051329%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=rFEBj%2FDa5Q83MSxhnHRE6PQjLoFsvXBy8UmJSwW4hZk%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
>