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 request is for a Proposed Standard type for the draft-ietf-oauth-dpop
document since the document defines a new application level proof of possession

(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 describes a mechanism for sender-constraining OAuth 2.0 tokens
  via a proof-of-possession mechanism on the application level. This mechanism
  allows for the detection of replay attacks with access and refresh tokens.

Working Group Summary:
  The work provides an application layer alternative to the OAuth 2.0 MTLS
  mechanism defined in RFC8705, when the use of MTLS is not possible or

Document Quality:
  A large number of people reviewed the document over several rounds of reviews
  and provided feedback during meetings and on the mailing list, with no
  blocking comments.


There are a number of implementations:

* The OpenID Foundation FAPI2 certification tools have implementations of /
  for (most of) DPoP as both an AS/RS & client.

* Authlete has implemented DPoP as an AS / RS.

* The Italian Attribute Authorization Infrastructure has an implementation

* liboauth2 library used in OAuth 2.0 Resource Server modules for Apache/NGINX

* OSS Nimbus OAuth 2.0 / OIDC Java SDK

* c2id server

* Synamedia has implemented DPoP in OTT ServiceGuard - Advanced anti-piracy
security for OTT video services, that includes a secure client library
providing DPoP generation capabilities to an integrating application. Synamedia
also supports DPoP as part of  Synamedia Go – using an Integrated OTT
ServiceGuard library in its clients and DPoP validation in its services to
provide a secure modular platform for OTT video services.

*  European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) defined a B2B solution for private clients
based on the DPoP draft version 03. The solution describes the behavior of the
Relying Party and the Resource Server. Implemented both RP and RS in JAVA
extending the Spring Framework to add the needed functionalities.

* Keycloak:
DPoP status: work in progress (tentatively Keycloak 22)

* Solid
- Community Solid Server (opensource): - Enterprise Solid
Server (commercial):

Client libraries:
- JavaScript:
- Java:

Note about Solid: it seems that they are following an older version of the
draft, and have some added behaviour not specified by the draft

The document shepherd is Rifaat Shekh-Yusef.
The responsible Area Director is Roman Danyliw.

(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 reviewed version 09 of the document and raised a number
of issues that the authors addressed. Some of these were addressed after
discussing these during a side meeting at IETF114. Versions 10 and 11 addressed
all my comments and concerns.

(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 a large number of 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 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.

There are 6 authors named on this draft. The authors believe that each
contributed to the document, and that there is no way to quantify the amount
of work that each author contributed.

(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 was a solid WG consensus that included feedback and support from multiple

(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.

There are 6 authors for this draft.

(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?


(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.


(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.


(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 requests a number of updates to a number of existing registries.

(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.


(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.

I reviewed the ABNF rules, and they seem to be valid.