Skip to main content

An IETF URN Sub-Namespace for OAuth
RFC 6755

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-10-14
06 (System) Notify list changed from oauth-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-oauth-urn-sub-ns@ietf.org to (None)
2012-10-05
06 (System) RFC published
2012-08-10
06 Ben Campbell Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Ben Campbell.
2012-08-02
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2012-07-31
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2012-07-31
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2012-07-31
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2012-07-24
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2012-07-23
06 Cindy Morgan State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2012-07-23
06 Amy Vezza State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed
2012-07-23
06 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2012-07-23
06 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2012-07-23
06 Amy Vezza Ballot approval text was generated
2012-07-23
06 Amy Vezza Ballot writeup was changed
2012-07-19
06 Cindy Morgan State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation
2012-07-19
06 Gonzalo Camarillo [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo
2012-07-19
06 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2012-07-18
06 Pete Resnick [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick
2012-07-18
06 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ronald Bonica
2012-07-17
06 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Sparks
2012-07-17
06 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant
2012-07-17
06 Wesley Eddy [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Wesley Eddy
2012-07-16
06 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling
2012-07-16
06 Brian Campbell New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-urn-sub-ns-06.txt
2012-07-16
05 Sean Turner
[Ballot comment]
Consider Tero Kivinen's suggestion to add a similar note than what is in
RFC2141 because adding pointer to another document which says "there …
[Ballot comment]
Consider Tero Kivinen's suggestion to add a similar note than what is in
RFC2141 because adding pointer to another document which says "there is
nothing here", isn't that helpful.
2012-07-16
05 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner
2012-07-15
05 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel
2012-07-15
05 Russ Housley
[Ballot comment]

  Please consider the editorial comment from the Gen-ART Review by
  Ben Campbell on 3-July-2012.  The review can be found here:
  …
[Ballot comment]

  Please consider the editorial comment from the Gen-ART Review by
  Ben Campbell on 3-July-2012.  The review can be found here:
  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg07576.html
2012-07-15
05 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley
2012-07-13
05 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Tero Kivinen.
2012-07-13
05 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2012-07-12
05 Stephen Farrell Ballot writeup was changed
2012-07-11
05 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2012-07-11
05 Stephen Farrell Placed on agenda for telechat - 2012-07-19
2012-07-11
05 Stephen Farrell State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2012-07-11
05 Stephen Farrell Ballot has been issued
2012-07-11
05 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2012-07-11
05 Stephen Farrell Created "Approve" ballot
2012-07-11
05 Stephen Farrell Ballot writeup was changed
2012-07-11
05 (System) State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2012-07-09
05 Pearl Liang
IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-oauth-urn-sub-ns-05 and has the following comments:

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document there are two
IANA actions which must be …
IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-oauth-urn-sub-ns-05 and has the following comments:

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document there are two
IANA actions which must be completed.

First, in the IETF URN Sub-namespace for Registered Protocol Parameter
Identifiers subregistry of the IETF Protocol Parameter Identifiers registry
located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/params/params.xml

a new URN will be registered as follows:

Registered Parameter Identifier: oauth
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
IANA Registry Reference: [ a pointer to the registry created below ]

Second, a new, top-level registry will be created and linked from the IANA
matrix page located at:

http://www.iana.org/protocols/

the new registry will be called the "oAuth URI" registry. the IANA Registry
Reference in step one above will point to this new registry. New registrations
in this registry are via Specification Required as defined by RFC 5226.

The template for requests for new registrations in this registry is
located in [ RFC-to-be ].

There are no initial registrations in this registry.

IANA understands that these are the only actions 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 only to confirm what actions will be performed.
2012-06-28
05 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Ben Campbell
2012-06-28
05 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Ben Campbell
2012-06-28
05 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tero Kivinen
2012-06-28
05 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tero Kivinen
2012-06-27
05 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
CC: <oauth@ietf.org>
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
CC: <oauth@ietf.org>
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-oauth-urn-sub-ns-05.txt> (An IETF URN Sub-Namespace for OAuth) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Web Authorization Protocol WG
(oauth) to consider the following document:
- 'An IETF URN Sub-Namespace for OAuth'
  <draft-ietf-oauth-urn-sub-ns-05.txt> as Informational RFC

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
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-07-11. 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


  This document establishes an IETF URN Sub-namespace for use with
  OAuth related specifications.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-urn-sub-ns/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-urn-sub-ns/ballot/


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


2012-06-27
05 Amy Vezza State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2012-06-27
05 Stephen Farrell Last call was requested
2012-06-27
05 Stephen Farrell Ballot approval text was generated
2012-06-27
05 Stephen Farrell Ballot writeup was generated
2012-06-27
05 Stephen Farrell State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2012-06-27
05 Stephen Farrell Last call announcement was generated
2012-06-27
05 Stephen Farrell Last call announcement was generated
2012-06-26
05 Stephen Farrell Last call announcement was generated
2012-06-26
05 Stephen Farrell Last call announcement was generated
2012-06-25
05 Brian Campbell New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-urn-sub-ns-05.txt
2012-06-22
04 Brian Campbell New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-urn-sub-ns-04.txt
2012-06-21
03 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2012-06-21
03 Brian Campbell New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-urn-sub-ns-03.txt
2012-06-20
02 Stephen Farrell State changed to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation
2012-06-20
02 Stephen Farrell State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2012-06-18
02 Cindy Morgan
(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? …
(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 target is Informational. It is just registering a URN Namespace
and does not specify any protocol elements. Therefore, Informational
is an appropriate designation. Yes, this is indicated in the title
page header.


(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 document establishes an IETF URN Sub-namespace for use with
OAuth related specifications.

Working Group Summary

There was no significant controversy in the working group, to my
knowledge. I suppose there really wasn't an argument about how to
spell "oauth".

Document Quality

The document is as long and short as it needs to be to register a
URN entry with IANA.

Personnel

Document Shepherd: Derek Atkins
Responsible AD: Stephen Farrell


(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.

I reviewed this document in completion, reading through multiple times
while writing this writeup. Luckily the document is relatively short.
It is ready for publication.


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

No, I have no concerns. It is straightforward requesting a URN and
providing means to request sub-URNs within the namespace.


(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.

No, no additional reviews are necessary.


(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.

No, I have no 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.

I do not know, but I do not believe that any IPR applies as this is
just a document to register a URN. I don't believe there is any IPR
on the name OAUTH.


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

Not to my knowledge.


(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?

I believe there is strong consensus, however there is a silent
majority within the WG. With the simplicity of this document I
suspect most people had no objections and therefore did not speak up.


(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.


(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.

None.


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

No additional reviews should be 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.


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

No.


(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, this does not affect any other documents.


(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 Considerations are consistent and appropriate. The new URN
space has an appropriate registration description.


(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.

While not explicitly stated as such, the IANA Registry only requires
an RFC. There is no Expert Review.


(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.

I only performed a manual review. The tools server says that ID-Nits
passed.
2012-06-18
02 Cindy Morgan Note added 'Derek Atkins (derek@ihtfp.com) is the document shepherd.'
2012-06-18
02 Stephen Farrell Intended Status changed to Informational from Proposed Standard
2012-06-18
02 Stephen Farrell Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard
2012-06-18
02 Stephen Farrell IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2012-06-18
02 (System) Earlier history may be found in the Comment Log for <a href="/doc/draft-campbell-oauth-urn-sub-ns/">draft-campbell-oauth-urn-sub-ns</a>
2012-05-25
02 Derek Atkins Changed protocol writeup
2012-05-24
02 Derek Atkins Changed shepherd to Derek Atkins
2012-01-03
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-urn-sub-ns-02.txt
2011-12-28
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-urn-sub-ns-01.txt
2011-08-30
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-urn-sub-ns-00.txt