Skip to main content

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 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:

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.

Also, it seems that ETSI has a specification based on this document:

There is also a different use for this mechanism as stated here:


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?


(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 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


  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to :

  ** 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

  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

  ** 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?


(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.

(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