I-D list for Using TLS in Applications RSS Feed

TLS/DTLS 1.3 Profiles for the Internet of Things

2026-02-26T07:55:32.215130+00:00

# 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?

About Adoption/History:
Yes, it reached broad (proportional to the active users) agreement.

Proposed by Hannes and Thomas originally OCT-2018; early support with reviews from: Barry Leiba, and Loganaden Velvindron (and comment from John Mattsson). CFA on 05-2025 Supported in ML by Eric Rescorla , Martin Thomson, and Loganaden Velvindron. Michel Richardson supported and actively contributed to the draft in 04-2022, later joined as co-author in v-08 OCT-2023.
WGLC for draft-ietf-uta-tls13-iot-profile-13 received support from
Marco Tiloca (+review that led to version 14), Henk Birkholz, Rich Salz.

Daniel Migault did an extensive review of draft-ietf-uta-tls13-iot-profile-14, which led to v17 on 18th October 2025. Then, Daniel M. gave an extensive reply on 7th November 2025, which led to v18 on 4th Feb 2026, acknowledged by Daniel. v19 Daniel has been included as author of the document.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?

None so far.

Extract from Reply from Michael Richardson [https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/0F71htIZKCwP1b96bdjOt_HrwKM/]
"As I recall, we made a conscious decision not to make any quantum-safe
recommendations."

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

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)?

N/A. It is a profile/configuration document for TLS 1.3.

## 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.

Interacts with TLS WG.
Further review in the form of IETF LC is sufficient.

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.

N/A.

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?

The document is ~30 pages, well structured, clear and concise. (Of course many sections rely on background from [RFC7925], this document being an update of RFC7925, that document needs to be read before).

Introduction motivates very well the need for the TLS 1.3 update (and key differences with TLS 1.2 profile). Section 17 "Certificate Profile” (9 pages, around 30%) accounts for most of the document, understandably.

This shepherd has sent a review the 16/Feb/2026 to the ML with some nits, here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/apzujMfWJhuR8s3mlHCtXUmEGkI/

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?

No early directorate reviews were performed. The review area that is most relevant is security area. Daniel Migault gave extensive feedback on TLS-related topics.

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?

Proposed Standard. Correct status, this document updates RFC 7925 (Proposed Standard) defining TLS/DTLS 1.3 profiles for IoT devices. This is reflected on the 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.

All authors have confirmed publicly that they are not aware of any related IPRs:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/ItccUnHu9htDLsmi79W1I_BJJOA/

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: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/ItccUnHu9htDLsmi79W1I_BJJOA/

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.)

A) The document passes I-D nits with
Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 2 comments (--).
Warning:
== There are 4 instances of lines with non-ascii characters in the document.
Relevant -- comment:
Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4210
(Obsoleted by RFC 9810)
---------

B) Review of "Content guidelines"
Regarding the content guidelines, the draft is appropriately named. All required sections are present in the draft. The Optional Privacy Considerations section is not present. Neither the Implementation Status section.

Language and style: abbreviations appropriately expanded (but one, were noted on this shepherd’s review), does not misrepresent its status, adheres to BCP 14, does not use non-inclusive language, and does not seem to contain stale text.
Protocol checklist OK-N/A.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

All references seem appropriately categorized.

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 (but one) normative references are RFCs. The remaining is I-D.ietf-tls-dtls-rrc (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.

There are no DOWNREFs. (all are standard’s track)

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?

No.
( One normative reference is draft-ietf-tls-dtls-rrc but it is currently in AUTH48 state, so all ok.)

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 document updates RFC 7925.
(This is reflected and discussed in abstract. Not on the intro but in Section 17, where the proper update for the profile defined in RFC 7925 is done, the section is explicit about this )

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]).

N/A.

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.

N/A.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

TLS/DTLS 1.3 Profiles for the Internet of Things

2026-02-26T06:53:06.074218+00:00

# 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?

About Adoption/History:
Yes, it reached broad (proportional to the active users) agreement.

Proposed by Hannes and Thomas originally OCT-2018; early support with reviews from: Barry Leiba, and Loganaden Velvindron (and comment from John Mattsson). CFA on 05-2025 Supported in ML by Eric Rescorla , Martin Thomson, and Loganaden Velvindron. Michel Richardson supported and actively contributed to the draft in 04-2022, later joined as co-author in v-08 OCT-2023.
WGLC for draft-ietf-uta-tls13-iot-profile-13 received support from
Marco Tiloca (+review that led to version 14), Henk Birkholz, Rich Salz.

Daniel Migault did an extensive review of draft-ietf-uta-tls13-iot-profile-14, which led to v17 on 18th October 2025. Then, Daniel M. gave an extensive reply on 7th November 2025, which led to v18 on 4th Feb 2026, acknowledged by Daniel.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?

None so far.

Extract from Reply from Michael Richardson [https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/0F71htIZKCwP1b96bdjOt_HrwKM/]
"As I recall, we made a conscious decision not to make any quantum-safe
recommendations."

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

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)?

N/A. It is a profile/configuration document for TLS 1.3.

## 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.

Interacts with TLS WG.
Further review in the form of IETF LC is sufficient.

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.

N/A.

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?

The document is ~30 pages, well structured, clear and concise. (Of course many sections rely on background from [RFC7925], this document being an update of RFC7925, that document needs to be read before).

Introduction motivates very well the need for the TLS 1.3 update (and key differences with TLS 1.2 profile). Section 17 "Certificate Profile” (9 pages, around 30%) accounts for most of the document, understandably.

This shepherd has sent a review the 16/Feb/2026 to the ML with some nits, here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/apzujMfWJhuR8s3mlHCtXUmEGkI/

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?

No early directorate reviews were performed. The review area that is most relevant is security area. Daniel Migault gave extensive feedback on TLS-related topics.

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?

Proposed Standard. Correct status, this document updates RFC 7925 (Proposed Standard) defining TLS/DTLS 1.3 profiles for IoT devices. This is reflected on the 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.

All authors have confirmed publicly that they are not aware of any related IPRs:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/ItccUnHu9htDLsmi79W1I_BJJOA/

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: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/ItccUnHu9htDLsmi79W1I_BJJOA/

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.)

A) The document passes I-D nits with
Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 2 comments (--).
Warning:
== There are 4 instances of lines with non-ascii characters in the document.
Relevant -- comment:
Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4210
(Obsoleted by RFC 9810)
---------

B) Review of "Content guidelines"
Regarding the content guidelines, the draft is appropriately named. All required sections are present in the draft. The Optional Privacy Considerations section is not present. Neither the Implementation Status section.

Language and style: abbreviations appropriately expanded (but one, were noted on this shepherd’s review), does not misrepresent its status, adheres to BCP 14, does not use non-inclusive language, and does not seem to contain stale text.
Protocol checklist OK-N/A.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

All references seem appropriately categorized.

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 (but one) normative references are RFCs. The remaining is I-D.ietf-tls-dtls-rrc (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.

There are no DOWNREFs. (all are standard’s track)

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?

No.
( One normative reference is draft-ietf-tls-dtls-rrc but it is currently in AUTH48 state, so all ok.)

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 document updates RFC 7925.
(This is reflected and discussed in abstract. Not on the intro but in Section 17, where the proper update for the profile defined in RFC 7925 is done, the section is explicit about this )

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]).

N/A.

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.

N/A.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

TLS/DTLS 1.3 Profiles for the Internet of Things

2026-02-26T06:53:06.054709+00:00

IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead

TLS/DTLS 1.3 Profiles for the Internet of Things

2026-02-26T06:53:05.994711+00:00

IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists

TLS/DTLS 1.3 Profiles for the Internet of Things

2026-02-26T06:53:05.984875+00:00

Changed action holders to Paul Wouters (IESG state changed)

TLS/DTLS 1.3 Profiles for the Internet of Things

2026-02-26T06:53:05.907968+00:00

Responsible AD changed to Paul Wouters

TLS/DTLS 1.3 Profiles for the Internet of Things

2026-02-26T06:53:05.897905+00:00

Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested

TLS/DTLS 1.3 Profiles for the Internet of Things

2026-02-26T06:52:41.476395+00:00

Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared.

Post-Quantum Cryptography Recommendations for TLS-based Applications

2026-02-24T13:34:03.107009+00:00

New version available: draft-ietf-uta-pqc-app-01.txt

Post-Quantum Cryptography Recommendations for TLS-based Applications

2026-02-24T13:34:03.103147+00:00

New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Tirumaleswar Reddy.K)

Post-Quantum Cryptography Recommendations for TLS-based Applications

2026-02-24T13:34:03.044455+00:00

Uploaded new revision

TLS/DTLS 1.3 Profiles for the Internet of Things

2026-02-20T12:52:49.872688+00:00

New version available: draft-ietf-uta-tls13-iot-profile-19.txt

TLS/DTLS 1.3 Profiles for the Internet of Things

2026-02-20T12:52:49.869727+00:00

New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Thomas Fossati)

TLS/DTLS 1.3 Profiles for the Internet of Things

2026-02-20T12:52:49.786361+00:00

Uploaded new revision

TLS/DTLS 1.3 Profiles for the Internet of Things

2026-02-16T15:54:19.006352+00:00

# 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?

About Adoption/History:
Yes, it reached broad (proportional to the active users) agreement.

Proposed by Hannes and Thomas originally OCT-2018; early support with reviews from: Barry Leiba, and Loganaden Velvindron (and comment from John Mattsson). CFA on 05-2025 Supported in ML by Eric Rescorla , Martin Thomson, and Loganaden Velvindron. Michel Richardson supported and actively contributed to the draft in 04-2022, later joined as co-author in v-08 OCT-2023.
WGLC for draft-ietf-uta-tls13-iot-profile-13 received support from
Marco Tiloca (+review that led to version 14), Henk Birkholz, Rich Salz.

Daniel Migault did an extensive review of draft-ietf-uta-tls13-iot-profile-14, which led to v17 on 18th October 2025. Then, Daniel M. gave an extensive reply on 7th November 2025, which led to v18 on 4th Feb 2026, acknowledged by Daniel.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?

None so far.

Extract from Reply from Michael Richardson [https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/0F71htIZKCwP1b96bdjOt_HrwKM/]
"As I recall, we made a conscious decision not to make any quantum-safe
recommendations."

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

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)?

N/A. It is a profile/configuration document for TLS 1.3.

## 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.

Interacts with TLS WG.
Further review in the form of IETF LC is sufficient.

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.

N/A.

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?

The document is ~30 pages, well structured, clear and concise. (Of course many sections rely on background from [RFC7925], this document being an update of RFC7925, that document needs to be read before).

Introduction motivates very well the need for the TLS 1.3 update (and key differences with TLS 1.2 profile). Section 17 "Certificate Profile” (9 pages, around 30%) accounts for most of the document, understandably.

This shepherd has sent a review the 16/Feb/2026 to the ML with some nits, here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/apzujMfWJhuR8s3mlHCtXUmEGkI/

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?

No early directorate reviews were performed. The review area that is most relevant is security area. Daniel Migault gave extensive feedback on TLS-related topics.

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?

Proposed Standard. Correct status, this document updates RFC 7925 (Proposed Standard) defining TLS/DTLS 1.3 profiles for IoT devices. This is reflected on the 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.

All authors have confirmed publicly that they are not aware of any related IPRs:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/ItccUnHu9htDLsmi79W1I_BJJOA/

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: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/ItccUnHu9htDLsmi79W1I_BJJOA/

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.)

A) The document passes I-D nits with
Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 2 comments (--).
Warning:
== There are 4 instances of lines with non-ascii characters in the document.
Relevant -- comment:
Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4210
(Obsoleted by RFC 9810)
---------

B) Review of "Content guidelines"
Regarding the content guidelines, the draft is appropriately named. All required sections are present in the draft. The Optional Privacy Considerations section is not present. Neither the Implementation Status section.

Language and style: abbreviations appropriately expanded (but one, were noted on this shepherd’s review), does not misrepresent its status, adheres to BCP 14, does not use non-inclusive language, and does not seem to contain stale text.
Protocol checklist OK-N/A.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

All references seem appropriately categorized.

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 (but one) normative references are RFCs. The remaining is I-D.ietf-tls-dtls-rrc (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.

There are no DOWNREFs. (all are standard’s track)

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?

No.
( One normative reference is draft-ietf-tls-dtls-rrc but it is currently in AUTH48 state, so all ok.)

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 document updates RFC 7925.
(This is reflected and discussed in abstract. Not on the intro but in Section 17, where the proper update for the profile defined in RFC 7925 is done, the section is explicit about this )

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]).

N/A.

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.

N/A.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/