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 |