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
adds new parameter for requests sent by a Client to an Authorization Server.
The type of RFC is indicated in the title page header.

(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:

An extension to the OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework defining request 
parameters that enable a client to explicitly signal to an authorization server 
about the identity of the protected resource(s) to which it is requesting 

Working Group Summary:

The document adds new parameter for requests sent by a Client to an 
Authorization Server.
The document received many reviews and feedbacks from multiple WG members on the 
mailing list and during the WG meetings.
The document was updated to reflect a late review to make sure that the document
makes it clear that the parameter might carry a location or an abstract identifier.

Document Quality:

The document has been implemented by the following:

* Ping has an implementation but with a different parameter name ("aud"):

* Microsoft

* Auth0 has an implementation but with a different parameter name ("audience"):

* Node.JS Open Source oidc-provider implements the draft in full

* ARM has an implementation as pard of the Pelion Secure Device Access (SDA) product:


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?


(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.

* Outdated reference of draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-16
* Section 1, first paragraph, last word: should be "the" instead of "The"
* Section 1, second paragraph, second last line: "the the" should be "the"

(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?

No such references.

(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 not complete yet.
There are two TODOs that depend on draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange.

(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