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?

This specification is proposed as a 'Standards Track' document. The document
defines a new response type to an introspection request in the form of a JWT.

(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 draft proposes an additional JSON Web Token (JWT) based response for 
OAuth 2.0 Token Introspection that allows for non-repudiation, and for 
application level authenticity, integrity, and confidentiality.

Working Group Summary:

The document received many reviews and feedback from multiple WG members on the 
mailing list and during the WG meetings.

The document was then submitted to the IESG, and during IESG review it had a 
DISCUSS that required significant change that needed the attention and approval 
of the WG. It was decided to send the document back to the WG to review the 
change, and the authors presented the update during an IETF107 interim meeting 
and got the support of the WG. The document then went through a WGLC during 
which no objections were recorded to the proposed change.

The proposed change moves the data of the introspected token into a top-level 
JWT claim to allow for the separation of the carrier JWT claims from the actual 
token introspection response claims.

Document Quality:

The document has been implemented by the following:

* node.js OSS oidc-provider implements the document in full behind an optional feature toggle

* connect2id has an implementation:

* ForgeRock:


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 has reviewed the document and feels the document is ready.

(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 many 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 needed and 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 document shepherd has no such 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?


Vladimir -
Torsten -

(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 is a solid support for this document from the WG.

(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.

idnits 2.16.04 


  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to :

     No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:

  -- The document date (April 25, 2020) is 71 days in the past.  Is this

  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard

     (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
     to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bcp has been published as RFC

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of

     Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).

     Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
     the items above.      

(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?

The document has a reference to the I-D.ietf-oauth-security-topics which is still
under discussion at the WG.

The document has a references to the I-D.ietf-oauth-jwt-bcp, which was already 
published as RFC8725.

(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.

No such 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.

No status change 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).

The IANA section is 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.

No new IANA 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 contains JSON-based examples, and these were validated using 
There is one issue with the following JSON example in page 7, which is missing a 
comma after the second kay-value pair:
     "typ": "token-introspection+jwt",
     "alg": "RS256"
     "kid": "wG6D"