Re: [Lake] edhoc end game: detailed plan

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

On 01/12/2022 17:00, Sean Turner wrote:
> Sorry if I’ve missed this in another email, but is the plan to close
> the WG (not the list) once EDHOC is published as an RFC?

Not quite. There's a traces draft at least. And some
mention of bits more work. Discussion of those bits is
due once we hit pubreq for edhoc; could be an interim
this or next month on that topic.

S

> 
> spt
> 
>> On Nov 29, 2022, at 16:43, Stephen Farrell
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Signed PGP part
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> This is to confirm the plan for finishing edhoc as was agreed at
>> IETF 115, but now with a few more concrete steps having been taken,
>> so more detail "filled in"...
>> 
>> Just to reprise the overall process here:
>> 
>> - We're done with WGLC but have a few things to finalise (see 
>> below); once those are handled (hopefully by Monday) the chairs
>> plan to hit the "publication requested" button which means asking
>> our area director (AD) to proceed towards an IETF last call - Our
>> AD (Paul) will likely want to do his own review as well before he
>> starts that IETF last call, and there can be a bit of delay on that
>> depending how busy the AD happens to be at the time (they really do
>> lead busy lives:-) - IETF last call (LC) is a two week period where
>> IETF participants who've not been engaged with the WG are invited
>> to comment. (Such comments are a good thing that often improve
>> drafts a lot or catch non-obvious things) - When IETF LC spans a
>> holiday period, those are often extended to 4 weeks or so (because
>> we do want to get those comments) - In parallel, we'll start
>> getting directorate reviews (i.e. secdir review etc) - Once all
>> IETF LC comments etc are handled then we'll be asking our AD to put
>> the draft on an IESG agenda for approval, generating more IESG
>> comments we'll need to handle, after which it'll head to the RFC
>> editor queue and then it'll pop out as an RFC a couple of months 
>> later
>> 
>> So there's a way to go, but we're near the end of the WG's work on
>> edhoc nonetheless as all those steps tend to take a *lot* less time
>> than things have taken so far.
>> 
>> So, the immediate specifics:
>> 
>> Draft-18 [1] should include all the WGLC comment resolutions as
>> agreed at IETF 115 and/or discussed subsequently on the list or in
>> github. Please review the diff [2] to check that the editors have
>> done that correctly in your view.
>> 
>> We also agreed at IETF 115 to give some people a chance to propose
>> a PR with a state machine description. We now have that at [3] and
>> need to decide to include it as an appendix (so that'd go in a
>> draft-19) or to leave that out for now and maybe include it in
>> another draft (such as [4]). The sense of the WG I think was to
>> include it if it's clearly correct but leave it out for now if
>> we're not sure. Let's try decide that by the end of week, (before
>> the end of Dec 4th), so please say if you'd like that PR merged or
>> not. (If there's ambiguity that'd take a while to fix, I'd ask you
>> to consider suggesting we omit it rather than wait, my reasoning
>> for that being that if we wait, other stuff will turn up that needs
>> more discussing...;-)
>> 
>> Meanwhile, please do also take the opportunity to do more reviews
>> of [1] - we can still treat any/all suggestions as IETF last call
>> comments. (But please don't re-raise any issues already resolved in
>> the WG.)
>> 
>> Mališa will be acting as document shepherd, so he'll be helping our
>> capable authors negotiate the above steps. I'll be doing another
>> chair-review of the draft before Monday as well. (Any nits from
>> that can be handled during or after IETF LC though.)
>> 
>> With a bit of luck we may get IETF LC done by the very early new
>> year, but that depends on our AD's queue and his doing his own
>> review of the draft, so we'll have to wait and see how the timing
>> goes.
>> 
>> Now... isn't that all very simple? :-)
>> 
>> Cheers, Stephen.
>> 
>> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lake-edhoc-18 
>> [2]
>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-lake-edhoc-17&url2=draft-ietf-lake-edhoc-18&difftype=--html
>>
>> 
[3] https://github.com/lake-wg/edhoc/pull/373
>> [4] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lake-traces/ 
>> <OpenPGP_0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc>
>> 
>> 
>