OAuth 2.0 Step Up Authentication Challenge Protocol
draft-ietf-oauth-step-up-authn-challenge-17

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Robert Sparks for the ARTART reviews and Mark Nottingham for the HTTPDIR review.  Please make sure the former was fully addressed before proceeding.

The SHOULD at the top of Section 4 is bare.  What happens if I don't do that?  Or should this really be a MUST?

Same question for the first SHOULD in Section 5.  Is there ever a legitimate reason not to do what it says?

I feel that claim names such as "acr" should be quoted.  They look like misspelled words otherwise.

[Ballot comment]
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-oauth-step-up-authn-challenge-14

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Christer Holmberg for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/oLXp-vndky-rjnfs7kkHjH8acSg).

## Comments

### Inclusive language

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

* 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`

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### URLs

These URLs in the document can probably be converted to HTTPS:

* http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html

### Grammar/style

#### Section 2, paragraph 12
```
hentication level, and the new one- selecting the appropriate token for each
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
This word seems to be formatted incorrectly. Consider fixing the spacing or
removing the hyphen completely.

#### Section 4, paragraph 1
```
Subsequent to the challenge in Figure 3, a cl
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
Consider using "after".

#### Section 5, paragraph 1
```
requirements, the resource servers needs a way of accessing information abou
                                    ^^^^^
```
The verb form "needs" does not seem to match the subject "servers".

#### Section 6.2, paragraph 6
```
ation server as a result of the requirements propagation method described he
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
An apostrophe may be missing.

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool

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

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-oauth-step-up-authn-challenge-12. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete.

First, in the OAuth Extensions Error Registry on the OAuth Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/oauth-parameters/

a single, registration is to be made as follows:

Name: insufficient_user_authentication
Usage Location: resource access error response
Protocol Extension: OAuth 2.0 Step-up Authentication Challenge Protocol
Change Controller: IETF
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 3 ]

As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

Second, in the OAuth Token Introspection Response registry also on the OAuth Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/oauth-parameters/

two, new registrations will be made as follows:

Name: acr
Description: Authentication Context Class Reference
Change Controller: IESG
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 6.2 ]

Name: auth_time
Description: Time when the user authentication occurred
Change Controller: IESG
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 6.2 ]

As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

IANA Question -> Would it be acceptable to list the IETF as the change controller for the the OAuth Token Introspection Response registrations instead of the IESG? There has been a preference for doing so, as described in the expired document at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-leiba-ietf-iana-registrations-00, but it hasn’t been recorded in a permanent document yet.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that these two actions are the only ones required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

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

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-03-03):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-oauth-step-up-authn-challenge@ietf.org, oauth-chairs@ietf.org, oauth@ietf.org, rdd@cert.org, rifaat.s.ietf@gmail.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (OAuth 2.0 Step-up Authentication Challenge Protocol) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Web Authorization Protocol WG
(oauth) to consider the following document: - 'OAuth 2.0 Step-up
Authentication Challenge Protocol'
  as Proposed Standard

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 2023-03-03. 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


  It is not uncommon for resource servers to require different
  authentication strengths or recentness according to the
  characteristics of a request.  This document introduces a mechanism
  for a resource server to signal to a client that the authentication
  event associated with the access token of the current request doesn't
  meet its authentication requirements and specify how to meet them.
  This document also codifies a mechanism for a client to request that
  an authorization server achieve a specific authentication strength or
  recentness when processing an authorization request.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-step-up-authn-challenge/



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

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?

The request is for a Proposed Standard type for the draft-ietf-oauth-step-up-authn-challenge
document since the document defines a new mechanism for a resource server to indicate
that the authentication level associated with the access token is not sufficient.


(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:

It is not uncommon for resource servers to require different
authentication strengths or freshness according to the
characteristics of a request. This document introduces a mechanism
for a resource server to signal to a client that the authentication
event associated with the access token of the current request doesn't
meet its authentication requirements and specify how to meet them.
This document also codifies a mechanism for a client to request that
an authorization server achieve a specific authentication strength or
freshness when processing an authorization request.

Working Group Summary:

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there
controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus
was particularly rough?

There were no controversial discussions related to this document.

Document Quality:

There are several implementations of this specification:

1. Ping Identity
Has implementations of the functionality in this document for the authorization
server and resource server roles.
https://docs.pingidentity.com/r/en-us/pingaccess-71/mhu1564006734179
https://docs.pingidentity.com/r/en-us/pingfederate-112/pf_authoriz_endpoint

2. Authlete
Authlete 2.3, which is planned to be released next month (January 2023),
supports OAuth 2.0 Step-up Authentication Challenge Protocol.
https://www.authlete.com/developers/stepup_authn/

3. HelseID is planning to implement this:
https://helseid.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/HELSEID/pages/493256708/How+to+do+a+step-up+of+the+authentication+level+of+a+user#Step-up-for-APIs

4. Apache HTTPd
The plan is to add support to the next release of mod_oauth2, an Apache HTTPd module.
https://github.com/zmartzone/mod_oauth2/blob/master/README.md

5. Duende
The current version of Duende IdentityServer supports everything included in this proposal, except for the new unmet_authentication_requirement error which has been added for v6.3.0 being released this summer.
https://duendesoftware.com/


Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Rifaat Shekh-Yusef is the document shepherd and Roman Danyliw is the responsible
area director.


(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for
publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

The shepherd has done a detailed review and posted his review to the mailing
list. The review comments have been addressed by the authors.


(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?

The document shepherd has no concerns regarding the reviews.


(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader
perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or
internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

This document, as other OAuth documents, are about security. There has been
sufficient security review of this document as part of the regular working
group process.


(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has
with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be
aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of
the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still
wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

The document shepherd has no concerns regarding this document.


(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures
required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have
already been filed. If not, explain why?

Each author has confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures have
already been filed:

Brian:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/DECuEklwhJ_LWG36Zzw9yqHt_n8/

Vittorio:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/lsKsvjaY8ZQ72Pde7eZQqcV07tE/


(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No IPRs have been filed for this document.


(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the
strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the
WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

There is a strong support from the WG for this document.


(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.)

Nobody has threatened an appeal or expressed discontent.


(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
(See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

The shepherd has verified nits using the https://www6.ietf.org/tools/idnits
tool. Others nits have been addressed during the shepherd review of the document.


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

This document adds several entries to existing IANA OAuth registries and
contains examples in JSON format. The examples have been verified.


(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?

Yes.


(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references
exist, what is the plan for their completion?

All normative references point to published RFCs.


(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these
downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

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.

This document does not change the status of an existing RFC.


(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that
any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly
created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial
contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations
are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see
RFC 8126).

The shepherd verified the content of the IANA registry with the content of the
IANA registry section.


(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in
selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

There are no new registries being created by this specification.


(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd
to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

The JSON examples were verified with an online tool.


(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with
any of the recommended validation tools
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply
with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in
RFC8342?

This document does not use YANG.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?

The request is for a Proposed Standard type for the draft-ietf-oauth-step-up-authn-challenge
document since the document defines a new mechanism for a resource server to indicate
that the authentication level associated with the access token is not sufficient.


(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:

It is not uncommon for resource servers to require different
authentication strengths or freshness according to the
characteristics of a request. This document introduces a mechanism
for a resource server to signal to a client that the authentication
event associated with the access token of the current request doesn't
meet its authentication requirements and specify how to meet them.
This document also codifies a mechanism for a client to request that
an authorization server achieve a specific authentication strength or
freshness when processing an authorization request.

Working Group Summary:

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there
controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus
was particularly rough?

There were no controversial discussions related to this document.

Document Quality:

There are several implementations of this specification:

1. Ping Identity
Has implementations of the functionality in this document for the authorization
server and resource server roles.
https://docs.pingidentity.com/r/en-us/pingaccess-71/mhu1564006734179
https://docs.pingidentity.com/r/en-us/pingfederate-112/pf_authoriz_endpoint

2. Authlete
Authlete 2.3, which is planned to be released next month (January 2023),
supports OAuth 2.0 Step-up Authentication Challenge Protocol.
https://www.authlete.com/developers/stepup_authn/

3. HelseID is planning to implement this:
https://helseid.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/HELSEID/pages/493256708/How+to+do+a+step-up+of+the+authentication+level+of+a+user#Step-up-for-APIs

4. Apache HTTPd
The plan is to add support to the next release of mod_oauth2, an Apache HTTPd module.
https://github.com/zmartzone/mod_oauth2/blob/master/README.md


Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Rifaat Shekh-Yusef is the document shepherd and Roman Danyliw is the responsible
area director.


(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for
publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

The shepherd has done a detailed review and posted his review to the mailing
list. The review comments have been addressed by the authors.


(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?

The document shepherd has no concerns regarding the reviews.


(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader
perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or
internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

This document, as other OAuth documents, are about security. There has been
sufficient security review of this document as part of the regular working
group process.


(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has
with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be
aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of
the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still
wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

The document shepherd has no concerns regarding this document.


(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures
required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have
already been filed. If not, explain why?

Each author has confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures have
already been filed:

Brian:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/DECuEklwhJ_LWG36Zzw9yqHt_n8/

Vittorio:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/lsKsvjaY8ZQ72Pde7eZQqcV07tE/


(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No IPRs have been filed for this document.


(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the
strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the
WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

There is a strong support from the WG for this document.


(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.)

Nobody has threatened an appeal or expressed discontent.


(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
(See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

The shepherd has verified nits using the https://www6.ietf.org/tools/idnits
tool. Others nits have been addressed during the shepherd review of the document.


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

This document adds several entries to existing IANA OAuth registries and
contains examples in JSON format. The examples have been verified.


(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?

Yes.


(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references
exist, what is the plan for their completion?

All normative references point to published RFCs.


(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these
downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

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.

This document does not change the status of an existing RFC.


(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that
any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly
created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial
contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations
are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see
RFC 8126).

The shepherd verified the content of the IANA registry with the content of the
IANA registry section.


(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in
selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

There are no new registries being created by this specification.


(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd
to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

The JSON examples were verified with an online tool.


(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with
any of the recommended validation tools
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply
with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in
RFC8342?

This document does not use YANG.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?

The request is for a Proposed Standard type for the draft-ietf-oauth-step-up-authn-challenge
document since the document defines a new mechanism for a resource server to indicate
that the authentication level associated with the access token is not sufficient.


(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:

It is not uncommon for resource servers to require different
authentication strengths or freshness according to the
characteristics of a request. This document introduces a mechanism
for a resource server to signal to a client that the authentication
event associated with the access token of the current request doesn't
meet its authentication requirements and specify how to meet them.
This document also codifies a mechanism for a client to request that
an authorization server achieve a specific authentication strength or
freshness when processing an authorization request.

Working Group Summary:

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there
controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus
was particularly rough?

There were no controversial discussions related to this document.

Document Quality:

There are several implementations of this specification:

1. Ping Identity
Has implementations of the functionality in this document for the authorization
server and resource server roles.
https://docs.pingidentity.com/r/en-us/pingaccess-71/mhu1564006734179
https://docs.pingidentity.com/r/en-us/pingfederate-112/pf_authoriz_endpoint

2. Authlete
Authlete 2.3, which is planned to be released next month (January 2023),
supports OAuth 2.0 Step-up Authentication Challenge Protocol.
https://www.authlete.com/developers/stepup_authn/

3. HelseID is planning to implement this:
https://helseid.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/HELSEID/pages/493256708/How+to+do+a+step-up+of+the+authentication+level+of+a+user#Step-up-for-APIs

4. Apache HTTPd
The plan is to add support to the next release of mod_oauth2, an Apache HTTPd module.
https://github.com/zmartzone/mod_oauth2/blob/master/README.md


Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Rifaat Shekh-Yusef is the document shepherd and Roman Danyliw is the responsible
area director.


(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for
publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

The shepherd has done a detailed review and posted his review to the mailing
list. The review comments have been addressed by the authors.


(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?

The document shepherd has no concerns regarding the reviews.


(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader
perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or
internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

This document, as other OAuth documents, are about security. There has been
sufficient security review of this document as part of the regular working
group process.


(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has
with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be
aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of
the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still
wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

The document shepherd has no concerns regarding this document.


(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures
required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have
already been filed. If not, explain why?

Each author has confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures have
already been filed:

Brian:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/DECuEklwhJ_LWG36Zzw9yqHt_n8/

Vittorio:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/lsKsvjaY8ZQ72Pde7eZQqcV07tE/


(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No IPRs have been filed for this document.


(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the
strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the
WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

There is a strong support from the WG for this document.


(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.)

Nobody has threatened an appeal or expressed discontent.


(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
(See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

The shepherd has verified nits using the https://www6.ietf.org/tools/idnits
tool. Others nits have been addressed during the shepherd review of the document.


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

This document adds several entries to existing IANA OAuth registries and
contains examples in JSON format. The examples have been verified.


(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?

Yes.


(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references
exist, what is the plan for their completion?

All normative references point to published RFCs.


(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these
downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

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.

This document does not change the status of an existing RFC.


(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that
any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly
created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial
contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations
are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see
RFC 8126).

The shepherd verified the content of the IANA registry with the content of the
IANA registry section.


(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in
selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

There are no new registries being created by this specification.


(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd
to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

The JSON examples were verified with an online tool.


(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with
any of the recommended validation tools
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply
with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in
RFC8342?

This document does not use YANG.