Writeup for "Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants" <draft-ietf-oauth-assertions-16>
(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 RFC type is 'Standards Track' and the type is indicated in the title page. Although the document is architectural in nature it is the umbrella document for two other 'Standards Track' specifications that instantiate this document for use with SAML assertions and JSON Web Tokens.
(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 specification provides a framework for the use of assertions with OAuth 2.0 in the form of a new client authentication mechanism and a new authorization grant type. Mechanisms are specified for transporting assertions during interactions with a token endpoint, as well as general processing rules.
The intent of this specification is to provide a common framework for OAuth 2.0 to interwork with other identity systems using assertions, and to provide alternative client authentication mechanisms.
Note that this specification only defines abstract message flows and processing rules. In order to be implementable, companion specifications are necessary to provide the corresponding concrete instantiations.
Working Group Summary:
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?
This document has been submitted to the IESG before and was returned to the working group due to interoperability concerns. The working group has discussed those concerns and has worked on several iterations of the document to reduce the amount of optional functionality.
The working group decided to separate the framework for assertion handling from instance documents supporting SAML assertion and JSON-based encoded tokens. Readers who want to implement the functionality also need to consult one of the extension documents.
The document shepherd is Hannes Tschofenig and the responsible area director is Kathleen Moriarty.
(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 draft authors believe that this document is ready for publication. The document has received review comments from working group members, the OAuth working group chairs, and from the IESG. These review comments have been taken into account.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
This document has gotten feedback from the working group and given the focused use cases it has received adequate review.
(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.
Since the OAuth working group develops security protocols any feedback from the security community is always appreciated.
(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.
Although the document shepherd had concerns earlier with the document, they have been addressed in the meanwhile.
(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?
Yes, the authors (Chuck Mortimore <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Brian Campbell <email@example.com>, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>, and Yaron Y. Goland <firstname.lastname@example.org>) have confirmed that they are not aware of any IPRs.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
No IPR disclosures have been filed.
(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 working group has consensus to publish this document.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise 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 appeal or extreme discontent has been raised.
(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 shepherd has checked the nits.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
There is no such review necessary.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either 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?
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.
No, there is no need for a downref.
(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.
The publication of this document does not change the status of other RFCs.
(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).
The document adds three values to an existing registry established with RFC 6749.
(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.
The document only adds entries to existing registries and does not define any new 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 only snippets of message exchanges used in the examples; no pseudo code is contained in the document that requires validation.