Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-19

Shepherd Write-Up for 
"OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework: JWT Secured Authorization Request (JAR)"
<draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-09> 

(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 specification is proposed as a 'Standards Track' document. The 
type of RFC is indicated. It changes the encoding of the authorization 
request message. 

(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 authorization request in OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749] utilizes query
   parameter serialization, which means that Authorization Request
   parameters are encoded in the URI of the request and sent through
   user agents such as web browsers.  While it is easy to implement, it
   means that (a) the communication through the user agents are not
   integrity protected and thus the parameters can be tainted, and (b)
   the source of the communication is not authentciated.  Because of
   these weaknesses, several attacks to the protocol have now been put
   forward.

   This document introduces the ability to send request parameters in a
   JSON Web Token (JWT) instead, which allows the request to be JWS
   signed and/or JWE encrypted so that the integrity, source
   authentication and confidentiallity property of the Authorization
   Request is attained.  The request can be sent by value or by
   reference.

Working Group Summary

  The document changes the encoding of the parameters in the 
  authorization request to a JSON-based encoding. 

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?

The request object and the request uri is an optional feature in 
the OpenID Connect Core specification and two working groups 
in the OpenID Foundation (namely the Modrna WG and the FAPI WG) 
are considering using this extension.

As part of the OpenID Foundation certification program the following
implementations of OpenID Connect Core indicate support for this 
functionality:
 * CZ.NIC mojeID, 
 * Thierry Habart's SimpleIdentitySever v.2.0.0, 
 * Roland Hedberg's pyoidc 0.7.7, 
 * Peercraft ApS's Peercarft, 
 * MIT's MITREidConnect, 
 * Gluue Server 2.3,
 * Filip Skokan's node-oidc pre supports.

Authlete (https://www.authlete.com/), a commerical, closed source 
server implementation, has also implemented this specification and 
is offering it.

There is an open source implementation from NRI in PHP and Scala.
NRI's Open Source PHP: https://bitbucket.org/PEOFIAMP/phpoidc

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 was involved in the working group review process
and verified the document for correctness.

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

There are no concerns regarding the document 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.

There are no specific reviews needed. 

(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 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 full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79: 

Nat: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg16675.html
John: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg16701.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 disclosures have been filed for this document. 

(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 in the working group for publishing 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 threatened an appeal or 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 checked the document. 

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

No formal review is needed. 

(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?

All normative references are published RFCs. 

(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 two downrefs, namely 
* RFC 6234: US Secure Hash Algorithms
* RFC 6819: OAuth Threat Model 

(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 an 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).

This document does not request any actions by IANA. 
 
(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.

None. 

(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 examples and those have been verified 
by the shepherd. 
Back