Shepherd 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?

The document is being requested for publication as a Proposed Standard.  The 
document is the consensus of the working group, but the working group was 
somewhat ambivalent on which publication track to pursue. It could be argued that 
this is just an algorithm description and thus should be Informational. In the end, 
the working group maintained the current approach of Proposed Standard, but the 
working group is willing to defer to the IESG if they prefer another approach. 
(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: 

This document defines a method for computing a hash value over a JSON Web Key 
structure.  The document describes what the subset of fields in a key to be used are, 
the method of creating a canonical form for those fields, and how to convert the 
resulting UNICODE string into a byte sequence appropriate for hashing.

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 
item. There was some discussion over the form and content of the string to be 
hashed.  Some people advocated for the use of the current X.509 SPKI structure and 
some over use a string that was not a JSON structure.  This discussion ended without 
conclusion and thus the original proposal advanced.

Document Quality:
This document has been reviewed and revised a few times. Several individuals from 
the OpenID Connect community have indicated that they have implemented the 

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. 

 (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.

The scope of the document is currently limited to the JSON Web documents from the 
JOSE working group.  As such there has been sufficient review for this purpose.  In 
the event that there is a push to use something such as DANE with this element, it 
might need more review both on the content and the question of the use a hash of 
the SPKI structure instead.

(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. 
This specification has been implemented and adopted in some communities (most 
especially OpenID). The only issue here is the question of what the correct 
serialization content is and if sufficient fields have been included.  The people who 
are planning to use the item immediately are comfortable with the content. 

(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 if somewhat ambivalent WG consensus. The 
document meets an immediate need of the community currently using the JOSE 
(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 and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate 
checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. 

ID nits were checked on the -06 version of the document. The results were as 
Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 5 comments (--).

There were two comments associated with Normative references to documents 
external to the IETF (from NIST and the Unicode Consortium). Both are appropriate 
normative references. 
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'SHS'
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'UNICODE'
There are two comments and a warning that are all related to body text  using [ ] 
being incorrectly identified as a reference. 
-- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on line 451
-- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '0' on line 451
== Missing Reference: 'specified ' is mentioned on line 450, but not defined

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

This document does not require any formal review. 

(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 are two documents that are tagged as down references.  Both of these 
documents should be fine.  They are:
     * The UNIODE Standard from the Unicode Consortium
     * The Secure Hash Standard from NIST
(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 is a first time document.  It will not change the status of any existing 
(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).

There are no IANA considerations in this document. 
(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.

There are no new IANA registries in this document. 
(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.