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.