Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token

Writeup for "JSON Web Token (JWT)" <draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token-25>

(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 RFC type is 'Standards Track' and the type is indicated in the title page.
This document defines the syntax and semantic of information elements.

(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:

   JSON Web Token (JWT) is a compact URL-safe means of representing
   claims to be transferred between two parties.  The claims in a JWT
   are encoded as a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) object that is
   used as the payload of a JSON Web Signature (JWS) structure or as the
   plaintext of a JSON Web Encryption (JWE) structure, enabling the
   claims to be digitally signed or MACed and/or encrypted.

Working Group Summary:

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting?
For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there
decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?

This document was uncontroversial. It defines a JSON-based security token
format to increase interoperability both among OAuth deployments and in other
application contexts as well. (ID tokens are specified in
http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html#IDToken)

Document Quality:

This document has gone through many iterations and has received substantial
feedback.

A substantial number of implementations exist, as documented at
http://openid.net/developers/libraries/#jwt
(scroll down to the 'JWT/JWS/JWE/JWK/JWA Implementations' section)

An Excel sheet providing additional details about implementations can be found
here:
http://www.oauth-v2.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/JWT-Implementations.xlsx

Personnel:

The document shepherd is Hannes Tschofenig 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 is ready for publication. The document has received review
comments from working group members, and from the OAuth working group chairs.
Implementations exist and they have tested for interoperability as part of the
OpenID Connect interop events.

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

This document has gotten enough feedback from the working group. There are no
concerns regarding 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.

Since the OAuth working group develops security protocols any feedback from the
security community is always appreciated. The JWT document heavily depends on
the work in the JOSE working group since it re-uses the JWE and the JWS
specifications. Reviews from the JOSE group are therefore also 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 shepherd has no concerns with this 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?

The authors have confirmed that they do not have or that they are not aware of
any IPR. Mike Jones:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg12753.html Nat Sakimura:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg12747.html John Bradley:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg12671.html

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

Two IPRs have been filed for the JWT specification this document relies on,
see
http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=document_search&id=draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token

There was no discussion regarding those two IPRs on the mailing list.

(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 consensus to publish 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.)

No appeal or extreme discontent has been raised.

(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 nits. The shepherd has also verified the examples
for correctness.

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

The document does not require a formal review even though it contains
JSON-based examples.

(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?

There are various JOSE documents that have not been published as RFCs yet.
It is recommended to last call and to publish this together with the respective
JOSE documents.

(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.

RFC 6755 is a necessary downref.
The document also contains a normative reference to ECMAScript, a non-IETF
document.

(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 does not change the status of other 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 document creates a new registry for JWT claims and populates this registry
with values.

It also registers values into two existing registries, namely into
 * the RFC 6755 created OAuth URN registry, and
 * the media type registry

(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.

The newly created JWT claims registry requires expert review for future
allocations. Guidance is given in the document. The document shepherd and the
author Michael Jones both volunteer to become expert reviewers. Note that the
document recommends that multiple expert reviewers be appointed, with the
following text (which also appears in the JOSE documents):
 "
   It is suggested that multiple Designated Experts be appointed who are
   able to represent the perspectives of different applications using
   this specification, in order to enable broadly-informed review of
   registration decisions.  In cases where a registration decision could
   be perceived as creating a conflict of interest for a particular
   Expert, that Expert should defer to the judgment of the other
   Expert(s).
"

(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.

There are examples in the document that use a JSON-based encoding. The document
shepherd has reviewed those examples and verified them for correctness.
Back