Shepherd writeup
rfc8628-15

(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 draft-ietf-oauth-device-flow-07 is a Standards Track document that defines a mechanism to allow users to request authorization for devices with Internet access but with limited UI capabilities (e.g. smart TV, media console, etc).
Standards Track is needed because the new mechanism defines a new flow that is not defined in the existing OAuth 2.0 specifications.


(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 OAuth 2.0 authorization flow for browserless and input constrained devices, often referred to as the device flow, enables OAuth clients to request user authorization from devices that have an Internet connection, but don't have an easy input method (such as a smart TV, media console, picture frame, or printer), or lack a suitable browser for a more traditional OAuth flow.  This authorization flow instructs the user to perform the authorization request on a secondary device, such as a smartphone.  There is no requirement for communication between the constrained device and the user's secondary device.


Working Group Summary:

The device flow used to be part of the OAuth 2.0 specification, but it was later moved to its own separate document based on the WG feedback and support:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/pQafddqfV3W3U_skHuR7E6ZQ44I
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/U7FsPASLxhNz4eB2FNypw4n952c

The WG document received many reviews and feedbacks from multiple WG members on the mailing list and during the WG meetings.


Document Quality:

The document has been implemented by Google, Facebook, Microsoft, ForgeRock, Salesforce, Curity Identity Server, and MITREid Connect.
https://developers.google.com/youtube/v3/guides/auth/devices
https://developers.facebook.com/docs/facebook-login/for-devices
https://github.com/Azure-Samples/active-directory-dotnet-deviceprofile
https://backstage.forgerock.com/docs/am/5.5/oauth2-guide/#rest-api-oauth2-device-flow
https://releasenotes.docs.salesforce.com/en-us/spring17/release-notes/rn_security_auth_device_flow.htm
https://www.curity.io/product/
https://github.com/mitreid-connect/OpenID-Connect-Java-Spring-Server

Also, it seems that ETSI has a specification based on this document:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg15969.html
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/23ARrozt4RUUHA_NRiet7c38oIA
http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/103400_103499/103407/01.01.01_60/ts_103407v010101p.pdf
https://tech.ebu.ch/groups/CPA

There is also a different use for this mechanism as stated here:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/VzEo9rqC3kmqCuLFR-JcYQvIM3Q

Personnel:

The document shepherd is Rifaat Shekh-Yusef. 
The responsible Area Director is Eric Rescorla.


(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 reviewed several versions of this document, including the last one, feels the document is ready.


(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

The document shepherd has no concerns with the level of reviews, as the document was discussed and reviewed by many participants.


(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.

Security review is always needed and 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.

The document shepherd has no such concerns.


(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.
John: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg17698.html
Mike: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg17704.html
William: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg17705.html
Hannes: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg17706.html


(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No such IPR disclosures.


(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?

There is a solid support for this document from the WG.


(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 such threat or discontent.


(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.

Section 7.1.1, last bullet, should point to section 3.2 instead of 3.1

The following is the IETF tools nits reports:

idnits 2.15.00 

/tmp/draft-ietf-oauth-device-flow-07.txt:

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  ** There is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the longest one
     being 14 characters in excess of 72.


  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not
     match the current year

  -- The document date (October 30, 2017) is 66 days in the past.  Is this
     intentional?


  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
     to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of
     draft-ietf-oauth-discovery-05

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 6755

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 6819


     Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).

     Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
     the items above.


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

No such reviews are necessary.


(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

Yes.


(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?

The document references the OAuth 2.0 Authorization Server Metadata document, which is under IESG Evaluation at this stage.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-discovery/


(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.

From the nits:
  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 6755

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 6819


(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.

No status change of any existing 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 IANA section is complete and correct.


(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.

No 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.

The document contains JSON-based examples, and these were validated using JSONLint.

Back