Original text:
Transporting the state needed by a client to process a response as serialized state information in the token has several significant and non-obvious security and privacy implications that need to be <del> mitigated; see serialized-state for recommendations.  In addition to the format requirements outlined there, implementations need to ensure that they are not vulnerable to maliciously crafted, delayed, or replayed tokens. </del>  It is generally expected that the use of encryption, integrity protection, and replay protection for serialized state is <del> appropriate.  In the absence of integrity and reply protection, an on-path attacker or rogue server/intermediary could return a state (either one modified in a reply, or an unsolicited one) that could alter the internal state of the client.  It is this reason that at least the use of integrity protection on the token is always recommended. </del>  It maybe that in some very specific case, as a result of a careful and detailed analysis of any potential attacks, that there may be cases where such cryptographic protections do not add value.  The <del> authors of this document have not found such a use case as yet. RFC3610 with a 64-bit tag is RECOMMENDED, combined with a sequence number and a replay window.  Where encryption is not needed, RFC6234, combined with a sequence number and a replay window, may be used. </del>  When using an encryption mode that depends on a nonce, such as AES- CCM, repeated use of the same nonce under the same key causes the <del> cipher to fail catastrophically.  If a nonce is ever used for more than one encryption operation with the same key, then the same key stream gets used to encrypt both plaintexts and the confidentiality guarantees are voided.  Devices with low-quality entropy sources -- as is typical with constrained devices, which incidentally happen to be a natural candidate for the stateless mechanism described in this document -- need to carefully pick a nonce generation mechanism that provides the above uniqueness guarantee.  Additionally, since it can be difficult to use AES-CCM securely when using statically configured keys, implementations should use RFC4107. </del>  6.

Reviewer comments:
the automated key management reference was made in error. RFC4107 is about systems like IKEv2, TLS, etc. where a key has to be agreed upon between two (or more nodes). The key needed for the encrypted state token never leaves the sender, so it can be a randomly generated key, provided that the nonce is never repeated. This text fixed the considerations for this section.

Revised text:
Transporting the state needed by a client to process a response as serialized state information in the token has several significant and non-obvious security and privacy implications that need to be  <ins> mitigated; see serialized-state for recommendations. In addition to the format requirements outlined there, implementations need to ensure that they are not vulnerable to maliciously crafted, delayed, or replayed tokens. </ins> It is generally expected that the use of encryption, integrity protection, and replay protection for serialized state is  <ins> appropriate. In the absence of integrity and reply protection, an on-path attacker or rogue server/intermediary could return a state (either one modified in a reply, or an unsolicited one) that could alter the internal state of the client. It is this reason that at least the use of integrity protection on the token is always recommended. </ins> It maybe that in some very specific case, as a result of a careful and detailed analysis of any potential attacks, that there may be cases where such cryptographic protections do not add value.  The  <ins> authors of this document have not found such a use case as yet, but this is a local decision. It should further be emphasized that the encrypted state is created by the sending node, and decrypted by the same node when receiving a response.  The key is not shared with any other system.  Therefore the choice of encryption scheme and the generation of the key for this system is purely a local matter. When encryption is used, the use of RFC3610 with a 64-bit tag is recommended, combined with a sequence number and a replay window. This choice is informed by available hardware acceleration of on many constrained systems.  If a different algorithm is available accelerated on the sender, with similar strength, then it SHOULD be preferred.  Where privacy of the state is not required, and encryption is not needed, RFC6234, combined with a sequence number and a replay window, may be used. This size of the replay window depends upon the number of outstanding requests that need to be outstanding.  This can be determined from the rate at which new ones are made, and the expected duration in which responses are expected. For instance, given a CoAP ACK_TIMEOUT of 2s, and a request rate of 10 requests/second, any request that is not answered within 2s will be considered to have failed.  Thus at most 20 request can be outstanding at a time, and any convenient replay window larger than 20 will work.  As replay windows are often implemented with a sliding window and a bit, the use of a 32-bit window would be sufficient. For use cases where requests are being relayed from another node, the request rate may be estimated by the total link capacity allocated for that kind of traffic.  An alternate view would consider how many IPv6 Neighbor Cache Entries (NCEs) the system can afford to allocate for this use. </ins> When using an encryption mode that depends on a nonce, such as AES- CCM, repeated use of the same nonce under the same key causes the  <ins> cipher to fail catastrophically. If a nonce is ever used for more than one encryption operation with the same key, then the same key stream gets used to encrypt both plaintexts and the confidentiality guarantees are voided.  Devices with low-quality entropy sources -- as is typical with constrained devices, which incidentally happen to be a natural candidate for the stateless mechanism described in this document -- need to carefully pick a nonce generation mechanism that provides the above uniqueness guarantee. RFC8613 appendix B.1.1 ("Sender Sequence Number") provides a model for how to maintain non-repeating nonces without causing excessive wear of flash. </ins> 6.