OAuth 2.0 Security Best Current Practice
draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-29

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics and RFC 9700, changed IESG state to RFC Published)

Please revise the IESG ballot feedback.  In particular, please address the the editorial feedback suggested by Scudder and idnits/Jethanandani around the use of "not" with RFC2119 keywords.

[Ballot comment]
I read Section 3 before Section 2 (c.f. Éric’s comment) and that worked for me.

One nit, “see #iuv_countermeasures” is presumably a broken xref.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for working on this specification.

One observation, does it add any value to mention the OAuth working group in the following sentence after publication?

  Section 2 says - This section describes the core set of security mechanisms and measures the OAuth working group considers to be best practices at the time of writing.

If there is no significant value add factor here, the it might be better to omit the working group name from sentence.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work put into this document.

Special thanks to Hannes Tschofenig for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus *BUT* the justification of the intended status is rather light.

My only comment is more on the flow: for the non-expert reader, reading sections 3+4 (threat) before will make it easier to undestanding the reasoning behind section 2.

I am trusting the SEC and APP ADs for the technical correctness of the document.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for writing this document. Just a couple of comments.

Using lowercase "not" together with an uppercase RFC2119 keyword is not
acceptable usage. Found: "not RECOMMENDED"

The IANA review of this document seems to not have concluded yet.

Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more
guidance:

* Term "masterthesis"; alternatives might be "active", "central", "initiator",
  "leader", "main", "orchestrator", "parent", "primary", "server"
* Term "man"; alternatives might be "individual", "people", "person"
* Term "he"; alternatives might be "they", "them", "their"
* Term "traditional"; alternatives might be "classic", "classical", "common",
  "conventional", "customary", "fixed", "habitual", "historic",
  "long-established", "popular", "prescribed", "regular", "rooted",
  "time-honored", "universal", "widely used", "widespread"
* Term "native"; alternatives might be "built-in", "fundamental", "ingrained",
  "intrinsic", "original"

[Ballot comment]
# Gunter Van de Velde, RTG AD, comments for draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-27.txt

Please find https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/ documenting the handling of ballots.

#GENERIC COMMENTS
#================
## There are a bunch of idnits identified when running the tool
https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-27.txt

[Ballot comment]
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-26
CC @ekline

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Nits

### S3

* "as good as practically possible" ->
  "as well as practically possible", perhaps?

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-25, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-02-22):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Hannes Tschofenig , draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics@ietf.org, hannes.tschofenig@arm.com, oauth-chairs@ietf.org, oauth@ietf.org, rdd@cert.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (OAuth 2.0 Security Best Current Practice) to Best Current Practice


The IESG has received a request from the Web Authorization Protocol WG
(oauth) to consider the following document: - 'OAuth 2.0 Security Best
Current Practice'
  as Best Current Practice

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-02-22. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document describes best current security practice for OAuth 2.0.
  It updates and extends the threat model and security advice given in
  [RFC6749], [RFC6750], and [RFC6819] to incorporate practical
  experiences gathered since OAuth 2.0 was published and covers new
  threats relevant due to the broader application of OAuth 2.0.  It
  further deprecates some modes of operation that are deemed less
  secure or even insecure.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    rfc6819: OAuth 2.0 Threat Model and Security Considerations (Informational - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF))

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-24

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

This document has been in development for a long time with review from many
working group participants.There is broad agreement to publish this document.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

The document updates security recommendations made in other documents and recommends
against the use of some functionality from the OAuth 2.0 protocol. Changes have gone
through long discussions and sometimes required new standardization efforts in the
OAuth working group to address open issues. The group is, however, after all the
work happy with the content.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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 extreme discontent.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

The document summarizes security recommendations from a number of OAuth
specifications and therefore there are many implementations of this specification
available.The open banking sector, in particular, implements the guidelines
provided by this specification.


## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

OAuth is a widely used protocol and hence there have been interactions with others.
We have, through working group members, made sure that the OpenID Foundation, who
uses OAuth as a foundation, is aware of the changes. The changes to the OAuth
protocol have been disseminated in workshops, conferences and industry events.


6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

This document does not need this type of review.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?

The document does not use YANG.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

There is no formal language in the document.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

The document is well written.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

N/A

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The document requests publiation as a BCP. This has been discussed in the group.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

The authors have been asked whether they are aware of any IPR associated with
this document:

John Bradley: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/hzkf0IXeAUlt5A46QTeRvrzOevc/
Andrey Labunets: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/taFc6PRHzVnp_D4lYJOk2eIoLoY/
Torsten Lodderstedt: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/Z-02xY8-KsEtXDcugMIyzAlUfU4/
Daniel Fett: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/dqOeF8hr5eB_cLfadqroK46duy4/


13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

The authors have not expressed interest to be removed from the document.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

The shepherd has verified the nits in this document.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

TBD.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

The specification lists a number of academic publications and specifications
from other standards developing organizations, such as the W3C. All references
are, however, publically available.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

RFC 6819 is a normative reference to an Informational RFC that is not liste
in the DOWNREF registry. A normative reference to the OAuth 2.0 threat model
document is appropriate for this type of document.


18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

All normative references are published RFCs.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

Yes, this document updates other documents, namely:
- RFC 6749
- RFC 6750
- RFC 6819

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

This document does not require actions by IANA.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

N/A

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-23


## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

This document has been in development for a long time with review from many working group participants.
There is broad agreement to publish this document.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

The document updates security recommendations made in other documents and recommends against the use of some functionality from the OAuth 2.0 protocol. Changes have gone through long discussions and sometimes required new standardization efforts in the OAuth working group to address open issues. The group is, however, after all the work happy with the content.



3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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 extreme discontent.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

TBD:

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

OAuth is a widely used protocol and hence there have been interactions with others.
We have, through working group members, made sure that the OpenID Foundation, who uses OAuth as a foundation,
is aware of the changes. The changes to the OAuth protocol have been disseminated in workshops, conferences and industry events.


6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

This document does not need this type of review.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?

The document does not use YANG.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

There is no formal language in the document.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

The document is well written.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The document requests publiation as a BCP. This has been discussed in the group.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

TBD

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

TBD

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

TBD.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].


TBD.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

TBD.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

TBD.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

TBD.


19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

Yes, this document updates other documents.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

This document does not require actions by IANA.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

N/A

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-23


## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

This document has been in development for a long time with review from many working group participants.
There is broad agreement to publish this document.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

The document updates security recommendations made in other documents and recommends against the use of some functionality from the OAuth 2.0 protocol. Changes have gone through long discussions and sometimes required new standardization efforts in the OAuth working group to address open issues. The group is, however, after all the work happy with the content.



3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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 extreme discontent.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

TBD:

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

OAuth is a widely used protocol and hence there have been interactions with others.
We have, through working group members, made sure that the OpenID Foundation, who uses OAuth as a foundation,
is aware of the changes. The changes to the OAuth protocol have been disseminated in workshops, conferences and industry events.


6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

This document does not need this type of review.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?

The document does not use YANG.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

There is no formal language in the document.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

The document is well written.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The document requests publiation as a BCP. This has been discussed in the group.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

TBD

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

TBD

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

TBD.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].


TBD.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

TBD.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

TBD.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

TBD.


19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

Yes, this document updates other documents.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

This document does not require actions by IANA.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

N/A

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/