Shepherd writeup
rfc7591-30

Shepherd Write-up for draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-24

(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? 

draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-22 is a 'Standards Track' that defines a 
protocol mechanism for use between an OAuth 2.0 client and an 
authorization server. 

(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 specification defines mechanisms for dynamically registering OAuth 
2.0 clients with authorization servers. Registration requests send a set 
of desired client metadata values to the authorization server and the 
resulting registration responses return a client identifier to use at 
the authorization server and the client metadata values registered for 
the client. The client can then use this registration information to 
communicate with the authorization server using the OAuth 2.0 protocol. 


Working Group Summary: 

The work on this document has gone through many iterations but there is 
strong agreement behind the document. The document has experienced 
working group last call twice: the first WGLC was in May 2013, which 
revealed different deployment preferences by various OAuth participants. 
Here is the link to the initial working group last call: 
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg11326.html 

To resolve those disagreements took some time and a new working group 
last call was started in April 2014 after the document was re-factored 
and controversial parts had been moved to another specification. 

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? 

Various implementations of the dynamic client registration protocol 
exist. Examples of implementations can be found in the UMA and in the 
OpenID Connect context, such as phpOIDC (see https://bitbucket.org/PEOFIAMP/phpoidc)
Gluu, and Cloud Identity (as reported at the Kantara Initiative website 
from an interop event that took place this year): 
http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA1+Interop+Participants+and+Solutions

Personnel: 

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

Hannes Tschofenig is the document shepherd 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 document shepherd has reviewed several iterations of this document 
and also the last version of this document. In a late stage of 
development various meta-data atttributes have been included in this 
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 level of detail. The 
specification has been extensively discussed and reviewed in the working 
group. 

(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 for OAuth specifications are always appreciated. Section 
2.2 also contains human readable meta-data that could benefit from a 
review. 

(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 concerns with the latest version of the 
document.

(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? 

Justin: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg13051.html
Mike: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg13065.html
John: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg13061.html
Phil: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg13063.html
Maciej: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg13122.html

A copyright question was raised during the work on the document and got 
later resolved with the input from Scott Bradner and Jorge Contreras.
John Bradley confirmed that text contributed from the OpenID Connect 
specification was in accordance with the OpenID Foundation copyright
policies, see
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg14250.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 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? 

There is solid consensus behind 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.) 

Nobody has threatened an appeal or indicated 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 verified the nits. 

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

No such review is necessary. 

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

Yes. The references are split into normative and 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? 

The publication of this document is dependent on the completion of other 
OAuth documents currently in IESG review, namely the JOSE documents and
the OAuth assertion drafts. 

(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 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. 

This document does not change the status of any existing RFC. 

(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 considerations are 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. 

This document creates two new IANA registries: a) Client Metadata 
Registry b) Endpoint Authentication Methods Registry 

The policy for each of these new registries is described in Section 5.1 
and Section 5.2, respectively. Regarding the selection of a suitable 
expert a person familiar with OAuth 2.0 would be a beneficial. 

The document populates the registries with an initial set 
of values. Those values are correct and match the main body of the 
document. 

(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 only contains examples based on JSON structures and those 
have been validated with JSONLint. 
Back