JSON Web Encryption (JWE) writeup:
(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?
This document is being requested for publication as a Proposed Standard. The
document was produced with the expectation that it would be widely used in
conjunction with the JSON Web Algorithms (JWA), JSON Web Signature (JWS), and
JSON Web Key (JWK) documents as part of a suite of documents providing security
services for JSON. As such, it is reasonable for these documents to progress on the
standards track. The intended status is shown on the title page.
(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:
This document, JSON Web Encryption (JWE), represents encrypted content using
Working Group Summary:
The document has clear working group consensus for publication, and has been
reviewed by several WG participants since its initial adoption as a working group
This document has been reviewed and revised many times. There are multiple
implementations of this document. Some of these are listed at:
https://openid.net/developers/libraries/ (see the JWT/JWS/JWE/JWK/JWA
Implementations section). There were no specific external expert reviews
conducted; however, the WGLC notification was sent to the W3C WebCrypto
Karen O'Donoghue is acting as the Document Shepherd. Kathleen Moriarty is the
Responsible Area Director.
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication,
please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.
The document shepherd has followed the working group process and reviewed the
final document and feels this document is ready for IESG review. Note, the
document shepherd did not validate the examples in the appendices.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
The document shepherd does not have any concerns about the reviews that were
(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.
This document doesnÕt require any special reviews beyond those planned during the
IESG review process. As a security specification, additional security reviews during
this process are expected.
(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.
The Document Shepherd is comfortable with this document as a stable specification
with two serializations for JWE objects. This specification has been implemented
and adopted in some communities (most especially OpenID).
(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?
All authors have confirmed that they have no relevant IPR disclosures.
(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 filed 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 document represents a solid WG consensus, however there are some issues for
which consensus was difficult with strong proponents on both sides of the issues.
(10) 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.
There have been no threats of anyone appealing the documents.
(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.
The following nit was identified. This nit is related to downrefs to algorithm
documents and are discussed further in (15).
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 1951
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as
the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
There are no formal review criteria for this document.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or
All references are tagged as normative or informative.
(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 on track for completion or are completed.
(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these
downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.
There is one down-reference to an information document. This is an algorithm
document so this is normal procedure.
RFC 1951 - DEFLATE Compressed Data Format Specification version 1.3
(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.
These documents are all first time documents. They will not change the status of
any existing documents.
(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 adds entries to the following IANA registry:
JSON Web Signature and Encryption Header Parameters (defined in JWS)
(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.
This document does not create any new IANA registries.
(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.
There are no formal language sections in these documents.