Shepherd writeup
rfc6749-31

PROTO writeup for draft-ietf-oauth-v2-22

The OAuth Working Group requests the publication of draft-ietf-oauth-v2-22 as a Proposed Standard RFC.

  (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
        Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the 
        document and, in particular, does he or she believe this 
        version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? 

Barry Leiba is the document shepherd.  I have reviewed this version, and am satisfied that it's ready.

  (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members 
        and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have 
        any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that 
        have been performed?  

The document has adequate review, and I have no concerns.

  (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document 
        needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, 
        e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with 
        AAA, internationalization or XML? 

I have no concerns.

  (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or 
        issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document 
        been filed? If so, please include a reference to the 
        disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on 
        this issue. 

I have no concerns.  There is no IPR involved.

  (1.e) 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 consensus of the working group, as a whole, behind it.

  (1.f) 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 
        entered into the ID Tracker.) 

No.

  (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the 
        document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist 
        and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are 
        not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document 
        met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB 
        Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? 

Yes; all is well.

  (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and 
        informative? 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 
        strategy for their completion? Are there normative references 
        that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If 
        so, list these downward references to support the Area 
        Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. 

All references are properly separated and labelled.
There is a normative reference to RFC 2246 (obsolete), TLS 1.0, as the most widely deployed TLS version at the time of this writing.
There are normative references to three Informational RFCs: 2818 (HTTP Over TLS), 4627 (application/json Media Type), and 4949 (Internet Security Glossary).
The working group and the shepherd believe that these are all appropriate references.

  (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA 
        consideration section exists and is consistent with the body 
        of the document? If the document specifies protocol 
        extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA 
        registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If 
        the document creates a new registry, does it define the 
        proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation 
        procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a 
        reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the 
        document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd 
        conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG 
        can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? 

The IANA Considerations section is correct and adequate.  This document creates four new registries, and they are clearly specified and populated as appropriate.

  (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the 
        document that are written in a formal language, such as XML 
        code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in 
        an automated checker?

There is a small amount of ABNF, and it is correct.

  (1.k) 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 
        Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract 
        and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be 
        an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract 
        or introduction. 

The OAuth 2.0 authorization protocol enables a third-party application to obtain limited access to an HTTP service, either on behalf of a resource owner by orchestrating an approval interaction between the resource owner and the HTTP service, or by allowing the third-party application to obtain access on its own behalf.  This specification replaces and obsoletes the OAuth 1.0 protocol described in RFC 5849.

     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 have been a number of controversies over the course of the development of OAuth 2.0.  All were eventually worked out to the satisfaction of the working group as a whole, and the result has significant consensus in the group, but some of it hasn't been easy.  The native application scenario (see section 9) remains a significant point in question: applications that users install -- perhaps may be convinced to install by malefactors -- are always a difficult security point, and that is true with OAuth as well.  As the text in the document says, these "may require special consideration", particularly in regard to security.

Because OAuth is trying to tie together applications and services from different trust domains, and because it is relying on end users to make important decisions, largely based on what they're told by the user interfaces, there are an extraordinary set of possible threats and security considerations involved.  The working group has chosen to handle this with a Security Considerations section that covers general issues and focuses on protocol issues, and a separate document (draft-ietf-oauth-v2-threatmodel) that describes detailed threats and further security considerations in more depth than would be possible in the base protocol spec.  There has been a great deal of discussion about where the line is -- what should go into the Security Considerations (section 10) in the base spec, and what will be in the companion document (to which there is an informative reference at the beginning of section 10).

In the end, the current text reflects strong working group consensus, though it is not without disagreement.  The working group believes the two documents together do the right job, they continue to work on draft-ietf-oauth-v2-threatmodel, and they expect to complete that document within the next months.

     Document Quality 
        Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a 
        significant number of vendors indicated their plan to 
        implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that 
        merit special mention as having done a thorough review, 
        e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a 
        conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If 
        there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, 
        what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type 
        review, on what date was the request posted? 
        
There has been fairly broad deployment of OAuth 1.0, from such companies as Yahoo!, Facebook, Google, and Twitter, and many of the existing deployments have been keeping up with the OAuth 2.0 progress, and adjusting their implementations accordingly.  Quite a number of working-group participants have given the current spec very thorough review.
Back