Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

(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.

2. Authlete
Authlete 2.3, which is planned to be released next month (January 2023),
supports OAuth 2.0 Step-up Authentication Challenge Protocol.

3. HelseID is planning to implement this:

4. Apache HTTPd
The plan is to add support to the next release of mod_oauth2, an Apache HTTPd

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.


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:



(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 and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

The shepherd has verified nits using the
tool. Others nits have been addressed during the shepherd review of the

(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?


(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
( 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

This document does not use YANG.