# 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/