Shepherd writeup
rfc7592-15

Shepherd Writeup for draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-management-09.txt

(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?

This document is target as an "Experimental RFC". There was sentiment 
in the working group that other solution appropriates are viable. It 
was therefore decided that the wider community would benefit from 
the documented protocol as a means to gain implementation and 
deployment experience. 

(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

   The OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration Management Protocol 
   defines methods for management of dynamic OAuth 2.0 client 
   registrations for use cases in which the properties of a
   registered client may need to be changed during the lifetime of 
   the client.


Working Group Summary

  The content of this specification was initially included in the 
  Dynamic Client Registration specification. As result of discussions 
  within the working group it was decided to separate the optional 
  management functionality from the core registration specification. 
  
  There was sentiment in the working group that other management 
  solution may be viable as well. It was therefore decided that 
  the wider community would benefit from the documented protocol 
  as a means to gain implementation and deployment experience. 
  
Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a 
  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to 
  implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that 
  merit special mention as having done a thorough review, 
  e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a 
  conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If 
  there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, 
  what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type 
  review, on what date was the request posted?

  There are implementations available of the specifications, such 
  as the MITRE ID Connect authorization server. All OpenID Connect
  implementations will support a subset of the functionality. 
  
  The MITRE ID Connect implementation can be found at:
  https://github.com/mitreid-connect/OpenID-Connect-Java-Spring-Server/
  
  According to Maciej Machulak Cloud Identity also implements this 
  specification. According to Justin Richer OxAuth (GLUU) also 
  implements this specification. 
  
Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

  Hannes Tschofenig is the document shepherd and Kathleen Moriarty is the 
  responsible area director. 
  
(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 carefully reviewed the document. 
  
(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 regarding the depth and the 
  breadth of the reviews.

(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.

  Feedback from the operations and management community would be useful 
  due to the nature of the document.
  
(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 shepherd raised concerns regarding the complexity of the 
  credential rotation mechanism but the working group did not express 
  similiar 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.

  The document authors have confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures 
have been disclosed. See the responses from the authors here:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg13713.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg13714.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 IPR disclosure regarding this document has 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 reached consensus to publish this document 
  as an experimental RFC; consensus for publishing it as a Standards 
  Track document was, however, not possible. 
  
(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.) 

  Nobody expressed extreme 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.

  The shepherd has checked the document against the ID nits. 
  
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  This document does not require any formal reviews. 
  
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

  This document has no informative references. 
  
(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?

  This document has a normative dependency on the Dynamic Client 
  Registration Protocol, which is currently in IESG review. 
  
(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. 

   There are no downward normative references. 

(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 will not lead to the change the status 
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).

This document adds two entries to a registry created by the 
'OAuth Dynamic Client Registration' specification, which is currently
in IESG review. 

(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.

This document does not create 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.

The document includes examples using JSON over HTTP. The shepherd has
verified these examples for correctness. 
Back