OAuth 2.0 Rich Authorization Requests
draft-ietf-oauth-rar-12
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2022-05-05
|
12 | Brian Campbell | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-rar-12.txt |
|
2022-05-05
|
12 | Brian Campbell | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Brian Campbell) |
|
2022-05-05
|
12 | Brian Campbell | Uploaded new revision |
|
2022-05-04
|
11 | Hannes Tschofenig | Shepherd Writeup for OAuth 2.0 Rich Authorization Requests (draft-ietf-oauth-rar-11) (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, … Shepherd Writeup for OAuth 2.0 Rich Authorization Requests (draft-ietf-oauth-rar-11) (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? The request is for a Proposed Standard for draft-ietf-oauth-rar. The document defines a new OAuth protocol parameter that is used to carry fine-grained authorization data in OAuth messages. (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 authorization framework [RFC6749] defines the parameter scope that allows OAuth clients to specify the requested scope, i.e., the permission, of an access token. This mechanism is sufficient to implement static scenarios and coarse-grained authorization requests, such as "give me read access to the resource owner's profile" but it is not sufficient to specify fine-grained authorization requirements, such as "please let me transfer an amount of 45 Euros to Merchant A" or "please give me read access to folder A and write access to file X". This specification introduces a new parameter authorization_details that allows clients to specify their fine-grained authorization requirements using the expressiveness of JSON data structures. 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? There were no controversial discussions related to this document. Document Quality: There are several implementations and deployments of this specification available, such as - the Yes banking ecosystem (with ~1200 IDPs) uses RAR for authorising payment initiation and qualified electronic signatures. - ConnectID product implementation, see https://connect2id.com/products/server/docs/datasheet#rar - Authlete supports RAR since version 2.2 and it is confirmed that at least one of their customers is operating a commercial service that utilizes RAR with CIBA as of April, 2022. Additionally, other organizations use this specification as a foundation for their work. For example: - The Cloud Signature Consortium included RAR as means to authorise electronic signature to the v 2.0 of its API for remote signature creation (https://cloudsignatureconsortium.org/resources/ <https://cloudsignatureconsortium.org/resources/>). - OpenID Foundation’s FAPI working group added RAR support to the FAPI 2 baseline profile (https://openid.net/specs/fapi-2_0-baseline-01.html <https://openid.net/specs/fapi-2_0-baseline-01.html>). Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Hannes Tschofenig is the document shepherd and Roman Danyliw 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 shepherd has done a detailed review and posted his review to the mailing list. The review comments have been addressed by the authors. (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 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. This document, as other OAuth documents, are about security. There has been sufficient security review of this document as part of the regular working group process. (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 regarding 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? Each author has confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures have already been filed: - Torsten Lodderstedt: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/OmUmH83MRfU67sI5JwvNOfYXbes/ - Brian Campbell: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/8U8voDsTNn79OoRVmlhxZi-PVyA/ - Justin Richer: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/1Y8cF1sxsdi1VBoYCZWX3MwtiRI/ (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPRs 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? The working group has not raised any concerns regarding the publication of 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 expressed 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 nits using the https://www6.ietf.org/tools/idnits tool. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. This document adds several entries to existing IANA OAuth registries and contains examples in JSON format. The examples have been verified. (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? All normative references point to published RFCs. (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. The normative references to protocol specifications are to Standards Track documents. (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 8126). The shepherd verified the content of the IANA registry with the content of the IANA registry section. (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. There are no new registries being created by this specification. (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, YANG modules, etc. The JSON examples were verified with an online tool. (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? This document does not use YANG. |
|
2022-05-04
|
11 | Hannes Tschofenig | Responsible AD changed to Roman Danyliw |
|
2022-05-04
|
11 | Hannes Tschofenig | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
|
2022-05-04
|
11 | Hannes Tschofenig | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
|
2022-05-04
|
11 | Hannes Tschofenig | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
|
2022-05-04
|
11 | Hannes Tschofenig | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
|
2022-05-04
|
11 | Hannes Tschofenig | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
|
2022-05-04
|
11 | Hannes Tschofenig | Shepherd Writeup for OAuth 2.0 Rich Authorization Requests (draft-ietf-oauth-rar-11) (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, … Shepherd Writeup for OAuth 2.0 Rich Authorization Requests (draft-ietf-oauth-rar-11) (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? The request is for a Proposed Standard for draft-ietf-oauth-rar. The document defines a new OAuth protocol parameter that is used to carry fine-grained authorization data in OAuth messages. (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 authorization framework [RFC6749] defines the parameter scope that allows OAuth clients to specify the requested scope, i.e., the permission, of an access token. This mechanism is sufficient to implement static scenarios and coarse-grained authorization requests, such as "give me read access to the resource owner's profile" but it is not sufficient to specify fine-grained authorization requirements, such as "please let me transfer an amount of 45 Euros to Merchant A" or "please give me read access to folder A and write access to file X". This specification introduces a new parameter authorization_details that allows clients to specify their fine-grained authorization requirements using the expressiveness of JSON data structures. 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? There were no controversial discussions related to this document. Document Quality: There are several implementations and deployments of this specification available, such as - the Yes banking ecosystem (with ~1200 IDPs) uses RAR for authorising payment initiation and qualified electronic signatures. - ConnectID product implementation, see https://connect2id.com/products/server/docs/datasheet#rar - Authlete supports RAR since version 2.2 and it is confirmed that at least one of their customers is operating a commercial service that utilizes RAR with CIBA as of April, 2022. Additionally, other organizations use this specification as a foundation for their work. For example: - The Cloud Signature Consortium included RAR as means to authorise electronic signature to the v 2.0 of its API for remote signature creation (https://cloudsignatureconsortium.org/resources/ <https://cloudsignatureconsortium.org/resources/>). - OpenID Foundation’s FAPI working group added RAR support to the FAPI 2 baseline profile (https://openid.net/specs/fapi-2_0-baseline-01.html <https://openid.net/specs/fapi-2_0-baseline-01.html>). Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Hannes Tschofenig is the document shepherd and Roman Danyliw 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 shepherd has done a detailed review and posted his review to the mailing list. The review comments have been addressed by the authors. (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 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. This document, as other OAuth documents, are about security. There has been sufficient security review of this document as part of the regular working group process. (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 regarding 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? Each author has confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures have already been filed: - Torsten Lodderstedt: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/OmUmH83MRfU67sI5JwvNOfYXbes/ - Brian Campbell: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/8U8voDsTNn79OoRVmlhxZi-PVyA/ - Justin Richer: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/1Y8cF1sxsdi1VBoYCZWX3MwtiRI/ (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPRs 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? The working group has not raised any concerns regarding the publication of 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 expressed 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 nits using the https://www6.ietf.org/tools/idnits tool. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. This document adds several entries to existing IANA OAuth registries and contains examples in JSON format. The examples have been verified. (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? All normative references point to published RFCs. (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. The normative references to protocol specifications are to Standards Track documents. (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 8126). The shepherd verified the content of the IANA registry with the content of the IANA registry section. (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. There are no new registries being created by this specification. (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, YANG modules, etc. The JSON examples were verified with an online tool. (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? This document does not use YANG. |
|
2022-05-04
|
11 | Hannes Tschofenig | Shepherd Writeup for OAuth 2.0 Rich Authorization Requests (draft-ietf-oauth-rar-11) (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, … Shepherd Writeup for OAuth 2.0 Rich Authorization Requests (draft-ietf-oauth-rar-11) (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? The request is for a Proposed Standard for draft-ietf-oauth-rar. The document defines a new OAuth protocol parameter that is used to carry fine-grained authorization data in OAuth messages. (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 authorization framework [RFC6749] defines the parameter scope that allows OAuth clients to specify the requested scope, i.e., the permission, of an access token. This mechanism is sufficient to implement static scenarios and coarse-grained authorization requests, such as "give me read access to the resource owner's profile" but it is not sufficient to specify fine-grained authorization requirements, such as "please let me transfer an amount of 45 Euros to Merchant A" or "please give me read access to folder A and write access to file X". This specification introduces a new parameter authorization_details that allows clients to specify their fine-grained authorization requirements using the expressiveness of JSON data structures. 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? There were no controversial discussions related to this document. Document Quality: There are several implementations and deployments of this specification available, such as - the Yes banking ecosystem (with ~1200 IDPs) uses RAR for authorising payment initiation and qualified electronic signatures. - ConnectID product implementation, see https://connect2id.com/products/server/docs/datasheet#rar - Authlete supports RAR since version 2.2 and it is confirmed that at least one of their customers is operating a commercial service that utilizes RAR with CIBA as of April, 2022. Additionally, other organizations use this specification as a foundation for their work. For example: - The Cloud Signature Consortium included RAR as means to authorise electronic signature to the v 2.0 of its API for remote signature creation (https://cloudsignatureconsortium.org/resources/ <https://cloudsignatureconsortium.org/resources/>). - OpenID Foundation’s FAPI working group added RAR support to the FAPI 2 baseline profile (https://openid.net/specs/fapi-2_0-baseline-01.html <https://openid.net/specs/fapi-2_0-baseline-01.html>). Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Hannes Tschofenig is the document shepherd and Roman Danyliw 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 shepherd has done a detailed review and posted his review to the mailing list. The review comments have been addressed by the authors. (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 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. This document, as other OAuth documents, are about security. There has been sufficient security review of this document as part of the regular working group process. (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 regarding 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? Each author has confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures have already been filed: - Torsten Lodderstedt: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/OmUmH83MRfU67sI5JwvNOfYXbes/ - Brian Campbell: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/8U8voDsTNn79OoRVmlhxZi-PVyA/ - Justin Richer: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/1Y8cF1sxsdi1VBoYCZWX3MwtiRI/ (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPRs 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? The working group has not raised any concerns regarding the publication of 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 expressed 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 nits using the https://www6.ietf.org/tools/idnits tool. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. This document adds several entries to existing IANA OAuth registries and contains examples in JSON format. The examples have been verified. (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? All normative references point to published RFCs. (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. The normative references to protocol specifications are to Standards Track documents. (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 8126). The shepherd verified the content of the IANA registry with the content of the IANA registry section. (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. There are no new registries being created by this specification. (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, YANG modules, etc. The JSON examples were verified with an online tool. (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? This document does not use YANG. |
|
2022-04-08
|
11 | Brian Campbell | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-rar-11.txt |
|
2022-04-08
|
11 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Brian Campbell) |
|
2022-04-08
|
11 | Brian Campbell | Uploaded new revision |
|
2022-04-06
|
10 | Hannes Tschofenig | Shepherd Writeup for OAuth 2.0 Rich Authorization Requests draft-ietf-oauth-rar-10 (1) What type of … Shepherd Writeup for OAuth 2.0 Rich Authorization Requests draft-ietf-oauth-rar-10 (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? The request is for a Proposed Standard for draft-ietf-oauth-rar. The document defines a new OAuth protocol parameter that is used to carry fine-grained authorization data in OAuth messages. (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 authorization framework [RFC6749] defines the parameter scope that allows OAuth clients to specify the requested scope, i.e., the permission, of an access token. This mechanism is sufficient to implement static scenarios and coarse-grained authorization requests, such as "give me read access to the resource owner's profile" but it is not sufficient to specify fine-grained authorization requirements, such as "please let me transfer an amount of 45 Euros to Merchant A" or "please give me read access to folder A and write access to file X". This specification introduces a new parameter authorization_details that allows clients to specify their fine-grained authorization requirements using the expressiveness of JSON data structures. 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? There were no controversial discussions related to this document. 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, YANG 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? TBD: Mail sent to the list. Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Hannes Tschofenig is the document shepherd and Roman Danyliw 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 shepherd has done a detailed review and posted his review to the mailing list. The review comments have been addressed by the authors. (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 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. This document, as other OAuth documents, are about security. There has been sufficient security review of this document as part of the regular working group process. (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 regarding 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? TBD: Mail sent to the list. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPRs 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? The working group has not raised any concerns regarding the publication of 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 expressed 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 nits using the https://www6.ietf.org/tools/idnits tool. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. This document adds several entries to existing IANA OAuth registries and contains examples in JSON format. The examples have been verified. (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? All normative references point to published RFCs. (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. The normative references to protocol specifications are to Standards Track documents. (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 8126). The shepherd verified the content of the IANA registry with the content of the IANA registry section. (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. There are no new registries being created by this specification. (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, YANG modules, etc. The JSON examples were verified with an online tool. (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? This document does not use YANG. |
|
2022-04-06
|
10 | Hannes Tschofenig | Document shepherd changed to Hannes Tschofenig |
|
2022-04-06
|
10 | Hannes Tschofenig | Notification list changed to hannes.tschofenig@arm.com, Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net from hannes.tschofenig@arm.com because the document shepherd was set |
|
2022-04-06
|
10 | Hannes Tschofenig | Document shepherd changed to Hannes Tschofenig |
|
2022-01-26
|
10 | Brian Campbell | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-rar-10.txt |
|
2022-01-26
|
10 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Brian Campbell) |
|
2022-01-26
|
10 | Brian Campbell | Uploaded new revision |
|
2022-01-22
|
09 | Torsten Lodderstedt | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-rar-09.txt |
|
2022-01-22
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2022-01-22
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>, Justin Richer <ietf@justin.richer.org>, Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net> |
|
2022-01-22
|
09 | Torsten Lodderstedt | Uploaded new revision |
|
2021-10-27
|
08 | Rifaat Shekh-Yusef | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document |
|
2021-10-18
|
08 | Torsten Lodderstedt | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-rar-08.txt |
|
2021-10-18
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2021-10-18
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>, Justin Richer <ietf@justin.richer.org>, Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net> |
|
2021-10-18
|
08 | Torsten Lodderstedt | Uploaded new revision |
|
2021-09-12
|
07 | Torsten Lodderstedt | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-rar-07.txt |
|
2021-09-12
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2021-09-12
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>, Justin Richer <ietf@justin.richer.org>, Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net> |
|
2021-09-12
|
07 | Torsten Lodderstedt | Uploaded new revision |
|
2021-09-12
|
06 | Torsten Lodderstedt | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-rar-06.txt |
|
2021-09-12
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2021-09-12
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>, Justin Richer <ietf@justin.richer.org>, Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net> |
|
2021-09-12
|
06 | Torsten Lodderstedt | Uploaded new revision |
|
2021-06-04
|
05 | Rifaat Shekh-Yusef | Notification list changed to hannes.tschofenig@arm.com because the document shepherd was set |
|
2021-06-04
|
05 | Rifaat Shekh-Yusef | Document shepherd changed to Hannes Tschofenig |
|
2021-05-15
|
05 | Torsten Lodderstedt | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-rar-05.txt |
|
2021-05-15
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2021-05-15
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>, Justin Richer <ietf@justin.richer.org>, Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net> |
|
2021-05-15
|
05 | Torsten Lodderstedt | Uploaded new revision |
|
2021-02-07
|
04 | Torsten Lodderstedt | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-rar-04.txt |
|
2021-02-07
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2021-02-07
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>, Justin Richer <ietf@justin.richer.org>, Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net> |
|
2021-02-07
|
04 | Torsten Lodderstedt | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-10-18
|
03 | Torsten Lodderstedt | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-rar-03.txt |
|
2020-10-18
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2020-10-18
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>, Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net>, Justin Richer <ietf@justin.richer.org> |
|
2020-10-18
|
03 | Torsten Lodderstedt | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-08-21
|
02 | Torsten Lodderstedt | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-rar-02.txt |
|
2020-08-21
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2020-08-21
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>, Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net>, Justin Richer <ietf@justin.richer.org> |
|
2020-08-21
|
02 | Torsten Lodderstedt | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-02-19
|
01 | Brian Campbell | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-rar-01.txt |
|
2020-02-19
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2020-02-19
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Justin Richer <ietf@justin.richer.org>, Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net>, Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com> |
|
2020-02-19
|
01 | Brian Campbell | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-01-21
|
00 | Torsten Lodderstedt | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-rar-00.txt |
|
2020-01-21
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
|
2020-01-21
|
00 | Torsten Lodderstedt | Set submitter to "Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net>", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: oauth-chairs@ietf.org |
|
2020-01-21
|
00 | Torsten Lodderstedt | Uploaded new revision |