pulseproof-sentinel

PPS and the IETF Process

This document explains the current IETF status of PulseProof Sentinel Protocol, abbreviated PPS, and how to provide feedback.

---

1. Current Status

PPS is submitted as an individual Internet-Draft:

draft-hezami-pulseproof-sentinel

Datatracker:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hezami-pulseproof-sentinel/

The draft is experimental.

It is not an RFC.

It is not an IETF standard.

---

2. Internet-Draft Basics

Internet-Drafts are working documents.

They are valid for a limited period and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted.

They should be cited only as work in progress.

The first revision is usually:

draft-hezami-pulseproof-sentinel-00

The next revision is:

draft-hezami-pulseproof-sentinel-01

---

3. Protocol Version vs Draft Revision

There are two different version concepts.

Protocol version

This appears inside the protocol:

version = 1

Draft revision

This appears in the draft filename:

draft-hezami-pulseproof-sentinel-00

Example:

Protocol version: 1
Draft revision: 00

They are independent.

---

4. Intended Status

The draft may specify one of:

Informational
Experimental
Standards Track

For the initial phase, Experimental or Informational is appropriate.

Standards Track requires broader review, implementation experience, and IETF consensus.

---

5. How to Provide Feedback

Feedback is welcome.

Useful feedback includes:

• protocol ambiguities
• security concerns
• implementation difficulties
• comparison with existing standards
• missing threat-model cases
• test vector proposals
• interoperability issues
• privacy concerns
• operational deployment concerns

---

6. Where to Discuss

Relevant IETF mailing lists may include:

secdispatch@ietf.org
saag@ietf.org

Before posting:

1. Subscribe to the mailing list.
2. Read recent archives.
3. Follow list etiquette.
4. Keep discussion technical and respectful.

Do not send large attachments to mailing lists.

Link to the draft and GitHub repository instead.

---

7. Suggested Feedback Topics

Reviewers may want to focus on:

Scope

• Is PPS sufficiently distinct from WebAuthn/FIDO2?
• Is the target deployment model clear?
• Are the non-goals clear?

Cryptography

• Is Ed25519 usage sound?
• Is deterministic CBOR encoding sufficiently specified?
• Is Trust Code derivation acceptable?
• Is the ratchet model safe?

Protocol Design

• Are the CBOR map labels clear?
• Are optional fields unambiguous?
• Is threshold mode well-scoped?
• Is duress detection safe?

Operations

• Is server state management clear?
• Are error codes sufficient?
• Are rate-limiting recommendations adequate?
• Is migration from TOTP realistic?

---

8. IPR and Patent Policy

IETF participants must follow IETF IPR policies.

If you know of intellectual property rights that may apply to this work, consider submitting an IPR disclosure:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/

This project does not assert that PPS is patentable.

Many underlying concepts have prior art.

Anyone planning to file patents should perform prior-art searches and obtain legal advice.

---

9. Relationship to Existing Standards

PPS references or relates to:

Standard	Relationship
RFC 2119	Requirement keywords
RFC 8174	Requirement keyword interpretation
RFC 4648	base64url encoding
RFC 5869	HKDF
RFC 8032	Ed25519
RFC 8949	CBOR
RFC 8610	CDDL
RFC 6238	TOTP, comparison
WebAuthn	comparison and coexistence
FIDO2	comparison and coexistence

PPS does not require WebAuthn.

PPS does not replace WebAuthn.

---

10. Implementation Experience

Implementation experience is valuable.

If you implement PPS, please consider sharing:

• language
• library stack
• conformance status
• test vector results
• interoperability issues
• performance characteristics
• usability observations

This helps the specification mature.

---

11. Citing the Draft

Example citation:

H. Hezami, "PulseProof Sentinel Protocol", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-hezami-pulseproof-sentinel, 2026.

Do not cite Internet-Drafts as final standards.

---

12. Future Revisions

Future revisions may address:

• reviewer feedback
• clarified CBOR encoding rules
• improved threat model
• post-quantum profiles
• FROST-based threshold mode
• formal security analysis
• additional test vectors
• IANA registration templates
• implementation reports

---

13. Repository

Public materials are maintained in the project repository:

ttps://github.com/pps-protocol/pulseproof-sentinel

The repository contains:

• specification
• documentation
• examples
• CDDL
• test vectors
• issue tracking