Grant Negotiation and Authorization Protocol Resource Server Connections
draft-ietf-gnap-resource-servers-09

[Ballot comment]
The document status question in the shepherd writeup was not completed.

Thanks to Rich Salz for his ARTART review.

Possibly an odd question, which you can blame on my DKIM background, but in Section 3.3:

(BEGIN)
The RS signs the request with its own key and sends the value of the access token as the body of the request as a JSON object with the following members:

[...]

proof (string): RECOMMENDED. The proofing method used by the client instance to bind the token to the RS request. The value MUST be in the GNAP Key Proofing Methods registry.

[...]

{
    "access_token": "OS9M2PMHKUR64TB8N6BW7OZB8CDFONP219RP1LT0",
    "proof": "httpsig",
    "resource_server": "7C7C4AZ9KHRS6X63AJAO"
}
(END)

Is the RECOMMENDED referring to the presence of "proof", or its inclusion in what gets hashed for the signature?

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for this document.

One question about the new IANA registries with Expert Review policy. They do contain a Reference field, which seems to imply that a specification should be publicly available. Experts guidelines are also given to check that the definition for each registered parameter is valid, which I assume would be in such a specification. However nowhere it is stated that the specification should be public (and stable?).

You could do like in RFC 7595 and add some text covering the fact that the Expert should check the specification exists and "if no permanent, citable specification (...) is included, credible reasons for not providing it SHOULD be given." This gives more flexibility than Specification required, while covering the requirement on the specification.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Lars Eggert for the GENART review.

** Section 5.3.1
  Status  Whether or not the format is in active use.  Possible values
      are Active and Deprecated.

Is there any guidance to the DE on how an existing registry value would have its status changed?

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-gnap-resource-servers-08. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are nine actions which we must complete. 

First, in the Well-Known URIs registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/well-known-uris/

A single URI is to be registered as follows:

URI Suffix: gnap-as-rs
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.1 ]
Status: permanent
Change Controller: IETF 
Related Information: 
Date Registered: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Date Modified: 

As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we have completed the required Expert Review via a separate request.

Second, in the GNAP Grant Request Parameters registry in the Grant Negotiation and Authorization Protocol (GNAP) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/gnap/

A single new registration is to be made as follows:

Name: existing_access_token
Type: string
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 4 ]

As this also requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request.  This review must be completed before the document’s IANA state can be changed to “IANA OK.”

Third, a new registry is to be created called the GNAP Token Formats registry. The new registry will be created in the Grant Negotiation and Authorization Protocol (GNAP) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/gnap/

The new registry will be managed via Specification Required as defined by RFC8126.  There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows:

Name Status  Description Reference
------+-----+------------+-----------
jwt-signed    Active  JSON Web Token, signed with JWS          RFC7519
jwt-encrypted  Active  JSON Web Token, encrypted with JWE      RFC7519
macaroon      Active  Macaroon                                [https://research.google/pubs/pub41892/]
biscuit        Active  Biscuit                                  [https://www.biscuitsec.org/]
zcap          Active  ZCAP                                    [https://w3c-ccg.github.io/zcap-spec/]

Fourth, a new registry is to be created called the GNAP Token Introspection Request registry. The new registry will be created in the Grant Negotiation and Authorization Protocol (GNAP) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/gnap/

The new registry will be managed via Specification Required as defined by RFC8126.  There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows:

Name Type Reference
------+----+-----------
access_token    string                  [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.3 ]
proof          string                  [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.3 ]
resource_server object/string              [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.3 ]
access          array of strings/objects [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.3 ]

Fifth, a new registry is to be created called the GNAP Token Introspection Response registry. The new registry will be created in the Grant Negotiation and Authorization Protocol (GNAP) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/gnap/

The new registry will be managed via Specification Required as defined by RFC8126.  There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows:

Name Type Reference
------+----+----------
active      boolean                      [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.3 ]
access      array of strings/objects    [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.3 ]
key        object/string                [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.3 ]
flags      array of strings            [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.3 ]
exp        integer                      [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.3 ]
iat        integer                      [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.3 ]
nbf        integer                      [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.3 ]
aud        string or array of strings  [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.3 ]
sub        string                      [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.3 ]
iss        string                      [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.3 ]
instance_id string                      [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.3 ]

Sixth, a new registry is to be created called the GNAP Resource Set Registration Request Parameters registry. The new registry will be created in the Grant Negotiation and Authorization Protocol (GNAP) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/gnap/

The new registry will be managed via Specification Required as defined by RFC8126.  There are four initial registrations in the new registry as follows:

Name: access
Type: array of strings/objects
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.4 ]

Name: resource_server
Type: string or object
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.4 ]

Name: token_formats_supported
Type: string
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.4 ]

Name: token_introspection_required
Type: boolean
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.4 ]

Seventh, a new registry is to be created called the GNAP Resource Set Registration Response Parameters registry. The new registry will be created in the Grant Negotiation and Authorization Protocol (GNAP) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/gnap/

The new registry will be managed via Specification Required as defined by RFC8126.  There are three initial registrations in the new registry as follows:

Name: resource_reference
Type: string
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.4 ]

Name: instance_id
Type: string
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.4 ]

Name: introspection_endpoint
Type: string
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.4 ]

Eighth, a new registry is to be created called the GNAP RS-Facing Discovery Document Fields registry. The new registry will be created in the Grant Negotiation and Authorization Protocol (GNAP) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/gnap/

The new registry will be managed via Specification Required as defined by RFC8126.  There are five initial registrations in the new registry as follows:

Name: introspection_endpoint
Type: string
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.1 ]

Name: token_formats_supported
Type: array of strings
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.1 ]

Name: resource_registration_endpoint
Type: string
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.1 ]

Name: grant_request_endpoint
Type: string
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.1 ]

Name: key_proofs_supported
Type: array of strings
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.1 ]

Ninth, a new registry is to be created called the GNAP RS-Facing Error Codes registry. The new registry will be created in the Grant Negotiation and Authorization Protocol (GNAP) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/gnap/

The new registry will be managed via Specification Required as defined by RFC8126.  There are three initial registrations in the new registry as follows:

Error: invalid_request
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.5 ]

Error: invalid_resource_server
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.5 ]

Error: invalid_access
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.5 ]

We understand that these nine actions are the only ones 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 meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-09-17):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: debcooley1@gmail.com, draft-ietf-gnap-resource-servers@ietf.org, gnap-chairs@ietf.org, leifj@mnt.se, txauth@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Grant Negotiation and Authorization Protocol Resource Server Connections) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Grant Negotiation and Authorization
Protocol WG (gnap) to consider the following document: - 'Grant Negotiation
and Authorization Protocol Resource Server
  Connections'
  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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-09-14. 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


  GNAP defines a mechanism for delegating authorization to a piece of
  software (the client), and conveying the results and artifacts of
  that delegation to the software.  This extension defines methods for
  resource servers (RS) to connect with authorization servers (AS) in
  an interoperable fashion.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-gnap-resource-servers/



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

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-09-17):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: debcooley1@gmail.com, draft-ietf-gnap-resource-servers@ietf.org, gnap-chairs@ietf.org, leifj@mnt.se, txauth@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Grant Negotiation and Authorization Protocol Resource Server Connections) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Grant Negotiation and Authorization
Protocol WG (gnap) to consider the following document: - 'Grant Negotiation
and Authorization Protocol Resource Server
  Connections'
  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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-09-14. 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


  GNAP defines a mechanism for delegating authorization to a piece of
  software (the client), and conveying the results and artifacts of
  that delegation to the software.  This extension defines methods for
  resource servers (RS) to connect with authorization servers (AS) in
  an interoperable fashion.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-gnap-resource-servers/



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

# 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?

The draft has been discussed in the WG and the consensus around the document is representative of the overall activity in the WG.

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

No issues

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 issues

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)?

There exists a limited but steady set of implementations.

## 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.

GNAP owes cultural affinity to OAUTH and to other identity and access control standards in the IETF. There has been overlapping review.

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.

None apply afaict

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]?

Not applicable

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.

Not applicable

## 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?

Yes

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?

A security expert review should (and has) be done but I don't expect it to reveal anything signifficant. A review from an URI expert might be a good idea.

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?

standards track

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.

yes

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

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.)

No issues

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

No issues

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

No issues

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.

No issues

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 issues

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.

No issues

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]).

The document provides a couple of registrations to existing registries and also creates several new registries associated with GNAP. The IANA section is clearly written.

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.

GNAP Resource Set Registration Request Parameters (section 5.6)
GNAP Resource Set Registration Response Parameters (section 5.7)
GNAP RS-Facing Discovery Document Fields (section 5.8)

The instructions for these three registries are very similary and are clearly set down in the draft.

[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/

# 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?

The draft has been discussed in the WG and the consensus around the document is representative of the overall activity in the WG.

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

No issues

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 issues

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)?

There exists a limited but steady set of implementations.

## 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.

GNAP owes cultural affinity to OAUTH and to other identity and access control standards in the IETF. There has been overlapping review.

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.

None apply afaict

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]?

Not applicable

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.

Not applicable

## 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?

Yes

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?

A security expert review should (and has) be done but I don't expect it to reveal anything signifficant. A review from an URI expert might be a good idea.

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?

standards track

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.

yes

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

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.)

No issues

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

No issues

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

No issues

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.

No issues

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 issues

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.

No issues

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]).

The document provides a couple of registrations to existing registries and also creates several new registries associated with GNAP. The IANA section is clearly written.

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.

GNAP Resource Set Registration Request Parameters (section 5.6)
GNAP Resource Set Registration Response Parameters (section 5.7)
GNAP RS-Facing Discovery Document Fields (section 5.8)

The instructions for these three registries are very similary and are clearly set down in the draft.

[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/

Closed request for Early review by RTGDIR with state 'Team Will not Review Document': Given the nature of this document it was felt it's not a good fit for RTGDIR reviewers expertise and thus will not be reviewed at this time

Request for Early review by INTDIR Completed: On the Right Track. Reviewer: Tommy Pauly. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.