Skip to main content

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

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2024-06-20
29 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IANA Actions from In Progress
2024-06-14
29 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2024-06-14
29 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2024-06-14
29 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2024-06-14
29 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2024-06-14
29 (System) Removed all action holders (IESG state changed)
2024-06-14
29 Jenny Bui IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2024-06-14
29 Jenny Bui IESG has approved the document
2024-06-14
29 Jenny Bui Closed "Approve" ballot
2024-06-14
29 Jenny Bui Ballot approval text was generated
2024-06-13
29 Roman Danyliw IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup
2024-06-03
29 Torsten Lodderstedt New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-29.txt
2024-06-03
29 (System) New version approved
2024-06-03
29 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andrey Labunets , Daniel Fett , John Bradley , Torsten Lodderstedt
2024-06-03
29 Torsten Lodderstedt Uploaded new revision
2024-06-03
28 (System) Changed action holders to Roman Danyliw (IESG state changed)
2024-06-03
28 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed
2024-06-03
28 Torsten Lodderstedt New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-28.txt
2024-06-03
28 (System) New version approved
2024-06-03
28 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andrey Labunets , Daniel Fett , John Bradley , Torsten Lodderstedt
2024-06-03
28 Torsten Lodderstedt Uploaded new revision
2024-05-23
27 Roman Danyliw
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 …
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.
2024-05-23
27 (System) Changed action holders to Torsten Lodderstedt, John Bradley, Andrey Labunets, Daniel Fett (IESG state changed)
2024-05-23
27 Roman Danyliw IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup
2024-05-16
27 Jenny Bui IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation
2024-05-16
27 Murray Kucherawy [Ballot comment]
I quite agree with Eric's comments and suggestions about document flow.
2024-05-16
27 Murray Kucherawy [Ballot Position Update] Position for Murray Kucherawy has been changed to No Objection from No Record
2024-05-16
27 Paul Wouters [Ballot comment]
Thanks for this very useful document.
2024-05-16
27 Paul Wouters [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Paul Wouters
2024-05-16
27 John Scudder
[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 …
[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.
2024-05-16
27 John Scudder Ballot comment text updated for John Scudder
2024-05-16
27 John Scudder [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for John Scudder
2024-05-15
27 Murray Kucherawy [Ballot comment]
I quite agree with Eric's comments and suggestions about document flow.

[Review is a work in progress; saving my work for now.]
2024-05-15
27 Murray Kucherawy Ballot comment text updated for Murray Kucherawy
2024-05-15
27 Sabrina Tanamal IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2024-05-15
27 Francesca Palombini [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Francesca Palombini
2024-05-14
27 Zaheduzzaman Sarker
[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 …
[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.
2024-05-14
27 Zaheduzzaman Sarker [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker
2024-05-14
27 Éric Vyncke
[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 …
[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.
2024-05-14
27 Éric Vyncke [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke
2024-05-13
27 Jim Guichard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jim Guichard
2024-05-11
27 Mahesh Jethanandani
[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 …
[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"
2024-05-11
27 Mahesh Jethanandani [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mahesh Jethanandani
2024-05-09
27 Michael Jones Request for Telechat review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Michael Jones. Sent review to list.
2024-05-09
27 Tero Kivinen Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Michael Jones
2024-05-08
27 Gunter Van de Velde
[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 …
[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
2024-05-08
27 Gunter Van de Velde [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gunter Van de Velde
2024-05-07
27 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2024-05-07
27 Torsten Lodderstedt New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-27.txt
2024-05-07
27 (System) New version approved
2024-05-07
27 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andrey Labunets , Daniel Fett , John Bradley , Torsten Lodderstedt
2024-05-07
27 Torsten Lodderstedt Uploaded new revision
2024-05-07
26 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2024-05-05
26 Erik Kline
[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 …
[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?
2024-05-05
26 Erik Kline [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline
2024-04-29
26 Russ Housley Request for Telechat review by ARTART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Russ Housley. Sent review to list.
2024-04-28
26 Michael Jones Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Michael Jones. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.
2024-04-28
26 Michael Jones Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Michael Jones.
2024-04-25
26 Barry Leiba Request for Telechat review by ARTART is assigned to Russ Housley
2024-04-24
26 Roman Danyliw Placed on agenda for telechat - 2024-05-16
2024-04-24
26 Roman Danyliw Ballot has been issued
2024-04-24
26 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw
2024-04-24
26 Roman Danyliw Created "Approve" ballot
2024-04-24
26 Roman Danyliw IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup
2024-04-24
26 Roman Danyliw Ballot writeup was changed
2024-04-24
26 Roman Danyliw Ballot approval text was generated
2024-04-21
26 (System) Changed action holders to Roman Danyliw (IESG state changed)
2024-04-21
26 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed
2024-04-21
26 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2024-04-21
26 Torsten Lodderstedt New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-26.txt
2024-04-21
26 (System) New version approved
2024-04-21
26 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andrey Labunets , Daniel Fett , John Bradley , Torsten Lodderstedt
2024-04-21
26 Torsten Lodderstedt Uploaded new revision
2024-02-27
25 Carlos Pignataro Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events'
2024-02-27
25 Carlos Pignataro Assignment of request for Last Call review by OPSDIR to Jouni Korhonen was marked no-response
2024-02-22
25 Roman Danyliw Please review and revise per the IETF LC ARTART review.
2024-02-22
25 (System) Changed action holders to Torsten Lodderstedt, John Bradley, Andrey Labunets, Daniel Fett (IESG state changed)
2024-02-22
25 Roman Danyliw IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2024-02-22
25 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2024-02-21
25 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2024-02-21
25 David Dong
(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 …
(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
2024-02-18
25 Russ Housley Request for Last Call review by ARTART Completed: Almost Ready. Reviewer: Russ Housley. Sent review to list.
2024-02-18
25 Thomas Fossati Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Thomas Fossati. Sent review to list.
2024-02-15
25 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Thomas Fossati
2024-02-15
25 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Michael Jones
2024-02-13
25 Carlos Pignataro Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jouni Korhonen
2024-02-12
25 Dhruv Dhody Assignment of request for Last Call review by OPSDIR to Dhruv Dhody was rejected
2024-02-12
25 Barry Leiba Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Russ Housley
2024-02-12
25 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Dhruv Dhody
2024-02-08
25 Liz Flynn IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2024-02-08
25 Liz Flynn
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, …
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))



2024-02-08
25 Liz Flynn IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2024-02-08
25 Roman Danyliw Last call was requested
2024-02-08
25 Roman Danyliw Last call announcement was generated
2024-02-08
25 Roman Danyliw Ballot approval text was generated
2024-02-08
25 Roman Danyliw Ballot writeup was generated
2024-02-08
25 Roman Danyliw IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2024-02-08
25 (System) Changed action holders to Roman Danyliw (IESG state changed)
2024-02-08
25 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed
2024-02-08
25 Torsten Lodderstedt New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-25.txt
2024-02-08
25 Daniel Fett New version approved
2024-02-08
25 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andrey Labunets , Daniel Fett , John Bradley , Torsten Lodderstedt
2024-02-08
25 Torsten Lodderstedt Uploaded new revision
2024-02-08
24 Roman Danyliw Follow-up to AD Review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/X85rDqdA-XZFrCKl_5nG4iORb0s/
2023-12-18
24 Roman Danyliw AD Review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/bTb-cLGsgUo9cWo5D1UFSwIGWtU/
2023-12-18
24 (System) Changed action holders to Roman Danyliw, Torsten Lodderstedt, John Bradley, Andrey Labunets, Daniel Fett (IESG state changed)
2023-12-18
24 Roman Danyliw IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from Publication Requested
2023-11-03
24 Hannes Tschofenig
# 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, …
# 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/

2023-11-03
24 Rifaat Shekh-Yusef
# 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, …
# 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/

2023-11-03
24 Rifaat Shekh-Yusef Responsible AD changed to Roman Danyliw
2023-11-03
24 Rifaat Shekh-Yusef IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2023-11-03
24 Rifaat Shekh-Yusef IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2023-11-03
24 Rifaat Shekh-Yusef Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested
2023-10-23
24 Torsten Lodderstedt New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-24.txt
2023-10-23
24 (System) New version approved
2023-10-23
24 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andrey Labunets , Daniel Fett , John Bradley , Torsten Lodderstedt
2023-10-23
24 Torsten Lodderstedt Uploaded new revision
2023-10-04
23 Hannes Tschofenig
# 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, …
# 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/

2023-06-05
23 Torsten Lodderstedt New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-23.txt
2023-06-05
23 Daniel Fett New version approved
2023-06-05
23 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andrey Labunets , Daniel Fett , John Bradley , Torsten Lodderstedt
2023-06-05
23 Torsten Lodderstedt Uploaded new revision
2023-03-13
22 Daniel Fett New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-22.txt
2023-03-13
22 (System) New version approved
2023-03-13
22 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andrey Labunets , Daniel Fett , John Bradley , Torsten Lodderstedt
2023-03-13
22 Daniel Fett Uploaded new revision
2022-09-27
21 Daniel Fett New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-21.txt
2022-09-27
21 (System) New version approved
2022-09-27
21 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andrey Labunets , Daniel Fett , John Bradley , Torsten Lodderstedt
2022-09-27
21 Daniel Fett Uploaded new revision
2022-07-28
20 Daniel Fett New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-20.txt
2022-07-28
20 Daniel Fett New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Daniel Fett)
2022-07-28
20 Daniel Fett Uploaded new revision
2022-06-19
19 (System) Document has expired
2022-03-16
19 Rifaat Shekh-Yusef IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document
2021-12-16
19 Daniel Fett New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-19.txt
2021-12-16
19 (System) New version approved
2021-12-16
19 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andrey Labunets , Daniel Fett , John Bradley , Torsten Lodderstedt
2021-12-16
19 Daniel Fett Uploaded new revision
2021-10-15
18 (System) Document has expired
2021-04-13
18 Daniel Fett New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-18.txt
2021-04-13
18 (System) New version approved
2021-04-13
18 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andrey Labunets , Daniel Fett , John Bradley , Torsten Lodderstedt
2021-04-13
18 Daniel Fett Uploaded new revision
2021-04-06
17 Daniel Fett New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-17.txt
2021-04-06
17 (System) New version approved
2021-04-06
17 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andrey Labunets , Daniel Fett , John Bradley , Torsten Lodderstedt
2021-04-06
17 Daniel Fett Uploaded new revision
2020-10-05
16 Daniel Fett New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-16.txt
2020-10-05
16 (System) New version approved
2020-10-05
16 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniel Fett , John Bradley , Andrey Labunets , Torsten Lodderstedt
2020-10-05
16 Daniel Fett Uploaded new revision
2020-04-05
15 Daniel Fett New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-15.txt
2020-04-05
15 (System) New version approved
2020-04-05
15 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andrey Labunets , Daniel Fett , Torsten Lodderstedt , John Bradley
2020-04-05
15 Daniel Fett Uploaded new revision
2020-02-10
14 Daniel Fett New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-14.txt
2020-02-10
14 (System) New version approved
2020-02-10
14 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andrey Labunets , Daniel Fett , Torsten Lodderstedt , John Bradley , oauth-chairs@ietf.org
2020-02-10
14 Daniel Fett Uploaded new revision
2020-01-09
13 (System) Document has expired
2019-07-08
13 Daniel Fett New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-13.txt
2019-07-08
13 (System) New version approved
2019-07-08
13 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andrey Labunets , Daniel Fett , Torsten Lodderstedt , John Bradley
2019-07-08
13 Daniel Fett Uploaded new revision
2019-03-08
12 Daniel Fett New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-12.txt
2019-03-08
12 (System) New version approved
2019-03-08
12 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andrey Labunets , Daniel Fett , Torsten Lodderstedt , John Bradley
2019-03-08
12 Daniel Fett Uploaded new revision
2018-12-28
11 Torsten Lodderstedt New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-11.txt
2018-12-28
11 (System) New version approved
2018-12-28
11 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andrey Labunets , Daniel Fett , Torsten Lodderstedt , John Bradley
2018-12-28
11 Torsten Lodderstedt Uploaded new revision
2018-12-01
10 Hannes Tschofenig Notification list changed to Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@arm.com>
2018-12-01
10 Hannes Tschofenig Document shepherd changed to Hannes Tschofenig
2018-12-01
10 Hannes Tschofenig Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2018-12-01
10 Hannes Tschofenig Intended Status changed to Best Current Practice from None
2018-12-01
10 Hannes Tschofenig This document now replaces draft-lodderstedt-oauth-security-topics instead of None
2018-11-20
10 Torsten Lodderstedt New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-10.txt
2018-11-20
10 (System) New version approved
2018-11-20
10 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andrey Labunets , Daniel Fett , Torsten Lodderstedt , John Bradley
2018-11-20
10 Torsten Lodderstedt Uploaded new revision
2018-11-09
09 Torsten Lodderstedt New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-09.txt
2018-11-09
09 (System) New version approved
2018-11-09
09 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andrey Labunets , Daniel Fett , Torsten Lodderstedt , John Bradley
2018-11-09
09 Torsten Lodderstedt Uploaded new revision
2018-10-15
08 Torsten Lodderstedt New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-08.txt
2018-10-15
08 (System) New version approved
2018-10-15
08 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andrey Labunets , Daniel Fett , Torsten Lodderstedt , John Bradley
2018-10-15
08 Torsten Lodderstedt Uploaded new revision
2018-08-24
07 Torsten Lodderstedt New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-07.txt
2018-08-24
07 (System) New version approved
2018-08-24
07 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andrey Labunets , Daniel Fett , Torsten Lodderstedt , John Bradley , oauth-chairs@ietf.org
2018-08-24
07 Torsten Lodderstedt Uploaded new revision
2018-05-20
06 Torsten Lodderstedt New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-06.txt
2018-05-20
06 (System) New version approved
2018-05-20
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andrey Labunets , Torsten Lodderstedt , John Bradley , oauth-chairs@ietf.org
2018-05-20
06 Torsten Lodderstedt Uploaded new revision
2018-03-18
05 Torsten Lodderstedt New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-05.txt
2018-03-18
05 (System) New version approved
2018-03-18
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andrey Labunets , Torsten Lodderstedt , John Bradley
2018-03-18
05 Torsten Lodderstedt Uploaded new revision
2017-11-14
04 Torsten Lodderstedt New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-04.txt
2017-11-14
04 (System) New version approved
2017-11-14
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andrey Labunets , Torsten Lodderstedt , John Bradley
2017-11-14
04 Torsten Lodderstedt Uploaded new revision
2017-09-10
03 Torsten Lodderstedt New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-03.txt
2017-09-10
03 (System) New version approved
2017-09-10
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Torsten Lodderstedt , Andrey Labunets , John Bradley
2017-09-10
03 Torsten Lodderstedt Uploaded new revision
2017-03-30
02 Torsten Lodderstedt New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-02.txt
2017-03-30
02 (System) New version approved
2017-03-30
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Torsten Lodderstedt , Andrey Labunets , John Bradley
2017-03-30
02 Torsten Lodderstedt Uploaded new revision
2017-03-27
01 Torsten Lodderstedt New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-01.txt
2017-03-27
01 (System) New version approved
2017-03-27
01 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Torsten Lodderstedt , Andrey Labunets , John Bradley
2017-03-27
01 Torsten Lodderstedt Uploaded new revision
2017-03-27
00 Torsten Lodderstedt New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-00.txt
2017-03-27
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2017-03-12
00 Torsten Lodderstedt Set submitter to "Torsten Lodderstedt ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: oauth-chairs@ietf.org
2017-03-12
00 Torsten Lodderstedt Uploaded new revision