Web Authorization Protocol
charter-ietf-oauth-06

Yes

Deb Cooley

No Objection

Andy Newton
Charles Eckel
Christopher Inacio
Éric Vyncke
Gorry Fairhurst
Gunter Van de Velde
Jim Guichard
Ketan Talaulikar
Mahesh Jethanandani
Mike Bishop
Mohamed Boucadair
Roman Danyliw

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05-03 and is now closed.

Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"

Deb Cooley
Yes
Andy Newton
No Objection
Charles Eckel
No Objection
Comment (2026-05-20 for -05-04) Sent 
Nice charter. I agree with Eric that it is great to see the statement on the much-needed "extensions for authorization of automated agents working on behalf of users."

I think it would be useful to clarify what is meant by "EU Wallet Initiative". Is this the EU Digital Identity Wallet? As this is an effort outside of the IETF, consider adding a link, e.g., https://ec.europa.eu/digital-building-blocks/sites/spaces/EUDIGITALIDENTITYWALLET/pages/694487738/EU+Digital+Identity+Wallet+Home, in order to avoid any confusion.
Christopher Inacio
No Objection
Éric Vyncke
No Objection
Comment (2026-05-20 for -05-04) Sent 
I like the clarity of the charter and the will to tackle `extensions for authorization of automated agents working on behalf of users` ;-)
Gorry Fairhurst
No Objection
Gunter Van de Velde
No Objection
Jim Guichard
No Objection
Ketan Talaulikar
No Objection
Mahesh Jethanandani
No Objection
Mike Bishop
No Objection
Mohamed Boucadair
No Objection
Comment (2026-05-19 for -05-04) Sent 
Hi all,

Thank you for preparing this updated version of the charter.

Please find below some few comments:

# Agents

CURRENT:
  As automated agents increasingly act on behalf of users, organizations, or both, these delegation patterns become increasingly involved and complex.

## Does the WG intend to work on identifying specifics of such schemes?

## Does the WG intend to publish applicability documents to show how existing OAuth Framework can be used in such contexts?

## The excerpt above exacerbates the need for having OAuth troubleshooting mechanisms and good error reporting. I suggest to add an item for operations/deployment considerations (and troubleshooting, in particular) under work program.

# Restriction?

CURRENT:
  The working group is now tackling these topics which will be published as Standards Track or BCPs:

This statement would exclude that the WG can refresh work such as https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/inline-errata/rfc6819.html  (that would, for example, integrate existing errata or considerations that may be specific to the complex delegation patterns listed above). I would argue for some flexibility here.

Cheers,
Med
Roman Danyliw
No Objection