• Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG
  • Awaiting Expert Review/Resolution of Issues Raised
  • Awaiting External Review/Resolution of Issues Raised
  • Awaiting Merge with Other Document
  • Author or Editor Needed
  • Waiting for Referenced Document
  • Waiting for Referencing Document
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by AD
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by IESG
  • Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway
  • Other - see Comment Log

IETF :: oauth

Current state: WG Document

Viewing the last 20 entries. Show full log.

2013-05-14 07:06 Stephen Farrell

State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead

2013-04-30 00:24 (System)

State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call

2013-04-24 13:06 (System)

IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed

2013-04-24 13:06 Amanda Baber

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-oauth-revocation-07. Authors should review the comments and/or questions below. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

IANA has a question about the IANA Actions requested in this document.

Upon approval of this document, IANA understands that there are two actions which IANA must complete.

First, in the OAuth Extensions Error Registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/oauth-parameters/oauth-parameters.xml#extensions-error

a new Error Value will be registered as follows:

Name: unsupported_token_type
Usage location revocation endpoint error response
Protocol extension Token Revocation Endpoint
Change controller IETF
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Second, a new registry will be created called the "OAuth Token Type Hint" registry. The new registry will be managed via Specification Required as defined by RFC 5226. The registry will also have a methodology for early registration as defined in section 5.1.2 of the approved document.

IANA understands that there will be at least one initial registration in this new registry.

IANA Question --> The authors request that the registry be populated as follows:

"The OAuth Token Type Hint registry's initial contents are:

o Hint Value: access_token

o Change controller: IETF

o Specification document(s): [this document]

o Response type name: refresh_token

o Change controller: IETF

o Specification document(s): [this document]

IANA wonders if this is a suggestion that there is only one registration, or if there are two and the words "Response Type Name" is a typo and should have been "Hint Value?"

IANA understands that these two actions are the only one required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

2013-04-16 10:21 Cindy Morgan

IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed

2013-04-16 10:21 Cindy Morgan

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call: (Token Revocation) to Proposed Standard

The IESG has received a request from the Web Authorization Protocol WG
(oauth) to consider the following document:
- 'Token Revocation'
as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-04-30. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract

This document proposes an additional endpoint for OAuth authorization
servers, which allows clients to notify the authorization server that
a previously obtained refresh or access token is no longer needed.
This allows the authorization server to cleanup security credentials.
A revocation request will invalidate the actual token and, if
applicable, other tokens based on the same authorization grant.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-revocation/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-revocation/ballot/

No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

The draft has a normative reference to RFC2246 (as well as
5346) as it follows the same approach to TLS as the base
oauth spec. (RFC6749, section 1.2).

2013-04-16 10:21 Cindy Morgan

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested

2013-04-16 09:51 Stephen Farrell

Last call was requested

2013-04-16 09:51 Stephen Farrell

Ballot approval text was generated

2013-04-16 09:51 Stephen Farrell

Ballot writeup was generated

2013-04-16 09:51 Stephen Farrell

State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup

2013-04-16 09:51 Stephen Farrell

Last call announcement was changed

2013-04-16 09:49 Stephen Farrell

Last call announcement was generated

2013-04-16 09:49 Stephen Farrell

Last call announcement was generated

2013-04-15 13:01 (System)

Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed

2013-04-15 13:01 Torsten Lodderstedt

New revision available

2013-04-12 15:40 Stephen Farrell

State changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation

2013-04-09 10:20 Stephen Farrell

State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested

2013-04-08 09:11 Amy Vezza


(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

The RFC type being requested in Standards Track. The type is appropriate for this type of OAuth protocol extension.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction.

The OAuth Token Revocation specification proposes an additional endpoint for OAuth authorization
servers, which allows clients to notify the authorization server that
a previously obtained refresh or access token is no longer needed.
This allows the authorization server to cleanup security credentials.
A revocation request will invalidate the actual token and, if
applicable, other tokens based on the same authorization grant.

Working Group Summary:

The document experienced no particular problems in the working group.

Document Quality:

The document has been deployed by four companies, namely by Salesforce, Google, Deutsche Telekom, and MITRE.
The working group reviewed and discussed the document extensively.

Personnel:

Hannes Tschofenig is the document shepherd. The responsible area director is Stephen Farrell.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd.

I have reviewed this version of the document and provided feedback to earlier versions of the draft.
The document is ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

I have no concerns about the level of reviews.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

No, there is no need for further reviews.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

I have no concerns regarding the document.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

Two of the three authors have confirmed that they are not aware of any IPRs. Marius Scurtescu so far has not responded to my mails.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

There are no IPR disclosures available for this document.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

The working group is in support of this document.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise 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.)

There has been no extreme discontent.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

ID nits have been verified. There is one reference ([portable-contacts]) that is not used in the document that has to be removed with the next draft update or by the RFC Editor.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The document does not contain content that requires formal reviews.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

All normative references are published RFCs already.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

There are no downward references.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

This document will not change the status of existing RFCs.

(17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

This document defines a new error code and follows the requirements in RFC 6749.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

The shepherd is currently the expert for RFC 6749 IANA registry allocations.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

No text written in a formal language is contained in the document.

-------------------------------

2013-04-08 09:11 Amy Vezza

Note added 'Hannes Tschofenig (hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net) is the document shepherd.'

Viewing the last 20 entries. Show full log.