(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper
type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
The draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-10 is a Standards Track document that
extends OAuth 2.0 and defines a new protocol for Security Token Service (STS)
to be used by OAuth elements (e.g. Clients, Resource Servers, etc) to exchange
one token for another.
(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:
This specification defines a protocol for an HTTP- and JSON- based Security
Token Service (STS) by defining how to request and obtain security tokens
from OAuth 2.0 authorization servers, including security tokens employing
impersonation and delegation. The specification extends the scope of the
Authorization Server (AS) to act as an STS to allow the AS to exchange one
token for another. The working group thinks that this is a useful Standards
Track document.
Working Group Summary:
The WG document is the result of the merge of two individual documents that
tried to address this issue of token exchange:
draft-jones-oauth-token-exchange and draft- campbell-oauth-sts. The scope of
the first few revisions of the document was limited, and there was a long
discussion of addressing a Token Chaining use case:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/pQRiMz0NjwcAG9Jazm8Aex40UX8/?qid=e6b492516cfa24bebbf8996009413d62
The WG document was extended to address the Token Chaining use case.
The individual and WG documents were reviewed by a large number of
participants, with lively and long discussions on the mailing list and during
the WG meetings.
One participant, Denis (denis.ietf@free.fr), raised some privacy & security
concerns with the WG document, which was not shared by the rest of the group.
Denis was encouraged by the group to write a draft on the subject to allow
for a better and clear understanding of his concerns, or discuss the security
issues in the context of the OAuth Security Topics document.
Document Quality:
The document has been implemented by Salesforce, Microsoft, Box, Indigo IAM,
Unity IdM, and partial implementation by RedHat.
https://medium.com/box-developer-blog/introducing-token-exchange-for-box-platform-3dcf7ab891b8https://indigo-dc.gitbooks.io/iam/content/doc/user-guide/oauth_token_exchange.htmlhttp://www.unity-idm.eu/documentation/unity-2.1.0/manual.html#_token_exchangehttp://www.keycloak.org/docs/latest/securing_apps/index.html#_token-exchange
Personnel:
The document shepherd is Rifaat Shekh-Yusef.
The responsible Area Director is Eric Rescorla.
(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 document shepherd has reviewed several versions of this document, including
the last one, feels the document is ready.
(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 with the level of reviews, as the
document was discussed and reviewed by many participants.
(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.
Security review is always needed and appreciated.
(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 such concerns.
(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?
Yes.
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg17638.htmlhttps://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg17639.htmlhttps://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg17640.htmlhttps://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg17646.htmlhttps://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg17669.html
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
No such IPR disclosures.
(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 solid support for this document from the WG, with the exception of
the individual mentioned above.
(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.)
No such threat or discontent, with the exception of the individual mentioned
above with his privacy and security concerns.
(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.
One nit found:
** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 7159 (Obsoleted by RFC 8259)
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No such reviews are necessary.
(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?
No such references.
(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.
No status change of any existing RFCs.
(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 5226).
The IANA section is complete and correct.
(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.
No new IANA registries.
(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, etc.
The document contains JSON-based examples, and these were validated using
JSONLint.