(1) Type of RFC is Informational. This document describes use cases and is therefore appropate only for Informational.
(2) Announcement Text:
This document defines a set of use cases and requirements
(JSON), drawn from a variety of application security mechanisms
currently in development.
Working Group Summary:
The document represents the consuses of the working group. The document was not controversial during the working group discussions.
The document has not had a large amount of review outside of the JOSE working group. As such it is possible that the group has missed or mis-represented the set of use cases that the JOSE working group needs to address when generating the specifications in the group. The OAUTH working group views are well presented, but it does not have sufficient apps area review.
Document Shepherd is Jim Schaad
Area Director is Sean Turner
(3) The document was throughly read by me. I found no significant problems with the document that would prevent publication.
(4) The document had reasonable review within the JOSE working group, however it needs more review outside of the group to make sure that the correct set of requirements has been setup for the solution.
(5) No portions of this document need review for specific perspectives.
(6) There are no specific concerns that I have with the content of the document. The document was specifically requested by me and thus I fell that this document is a logical part of the JOSE output.
(7) The author has confirmed that no undisclosed IPR exists for this document.
(8) There are no IPR disclosures on this document
(9) The document is a consensus of the core group of participants in the WG. There were no dissenting voices expressed in the document to publication.
(10) No discontent has been expressed.
(11) I have reviewed for ID Nits and found only the fact that there are several out of date references, this is not a surprise as this is a static document and it is referencing active documents.
(12) Nor formal review criteria is required.
(13) The allocation of references to informational vs normative generally makes sense.
(14) All documents that are currently not completed are expected to complete in the future. It is expected this document will be held up by the RFC Editor until they are completed.
(15) The document is informational, there are no down references.
(16) This is a new document, it does not modify any existing documents.
(17) The IANA section is correct.
(18) No new IANA work will ever be required by this document.
(19) No formal language checks were performed or are required.