OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration Management Protocol
RFC 7592
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2015-10-14
|
15 | (System) | Notify list changed from "Hannes Tschofenig" <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net> to (None) |
|
2015-07-09
|
15 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2015-07-07
|
15 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc7592">AUTH48-DONE</a> from AUTH48 |
|
2015-06-29
|
15 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc7592">AUTH48</a> from RFC-EDITOR |
|
2015-06-24
|
15 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
|
2015-06-02
|
15 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
|
2015-06-01
|
15 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
|
2015-05-31
|
15 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
|
2015-05-29
|
15 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from On Hold |
|
2015-05-13
|
15 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to On Hold from In Progress |
|
2015-05-12
|
15 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
|
2015-05-12
|
15 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
|
2015-05-12
|
15 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
|
2015-05-11
|
15 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
|
2015-05-11
|
15 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
|
2015-05-11
|
15 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
|
2015-05-11
|
15 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2015-05-11
|
15 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
|
2015-05-05
|
15 | Justin Richer | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-management-15.txt |
|
2015-04-29
|
14 | Peter Yee | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Peter Yee. |
|
2015-04-21
|
14 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
|
2015-04-21
|
14 | Justin Richer | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
|
2015-04-21
|
14 | Justin Richer | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-management-14.txt |
|
2015-04-09
|
13 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
|
2015-04-09
|
13 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
|
2015-04-09
|
13 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
|
2015-04-09
|
13 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] I agree with Ben's point. A short paragraph such as sent in mail earlier would be good. |
|
2015-04-09
|
13 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
|
2015-04-09
|
13 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
|
2015-04-09
|
13 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
|
2015-04-08
|
13 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
|
2015-04-08
|
13 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
|
2015-04-08
|
13 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] It would be nice to see a a description of the "Experiment". Is there an expectation that some or all of this would … [Ballot comment] It would be nice to see a a description of the "Experiment". Is there an expectation that some or all of this would eventually move to the standards track? |
|
2015-04-08
|
13 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
|
2015-04-08
|
13 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
|
2015-04-08
|
13 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
|
2015-04-07
|
13 | Kathleen Moriarty | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
|
2015-04-06
|
13 | Justin Richer | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
|
2015-04-06
|
13 | Justin Richer | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-management-13.txt |
|
2015-04-02
|
12 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Peter Yee |
|
2015-04-02
|
12 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Peter Yee |
|
2015-04-02
|
12 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Ben Laurie. |
|
2015-03-30
|
12 | Peter Yee | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Peter Yee. |
|
2015-03-28
|
12 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Tom Taylor. |
|
2015-03-25
|
12 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
|
2015-03-25
|
12 | Kathleen Moriarty | Ballot has been issued |
|
2015-03-25
|
12 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
|
2015-03-25
|
12 | Kathleen Moriarty | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2015-03-25
|
12 | Kathleen Moriarty | Ballot writeup was changed |
|
2015-03-25
|
12 | Kathleen Moriarty | Ballot writeup was changed |
|
2015-03-24
|
12 | Justin Richer | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-management-12.txt |
|
2015-03-23
|
11 | Justin Richer | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA - Not OK |
|
2015-03-23
|
11 | Justin Richer | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-management-11.txt |
|
2015-03-23
|
10 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
|
2015-03-23
|
10 | Pearl Liang | IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-management-09. Authors should review the comments and/or questions below. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon … IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-management-09. Authors should review the comments and/or questions below. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible. We received the following comments/questions from the IANA's reviewer: IANA has questions about the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document. The authors request that: This specification requests that IANA extend the OAuth Dynamic Client Metadata registry with the following entries: o Client Metadata Name: "registration_access_token" o Client Metadata Description: OAuth 2.0 bearer token used to access the client configuration endpoint o Change controller: IESG o Specification document(s): [[ RFC-to-be ]] o Client Metadata Name: "registration_client_uri" o Client Metadata Description: Fully qualified URI of the client registration endpoint o Change controller: IESG o Specification document(s): [[ RFC-to-be ]] IANA Question --> The OAuth Dynamic Client Metadata does not appear to exist. It appears that the new registry would be created by draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg, however IANA's understanding is that this document is not yet approved. It also appears that the new registry is referred to by different names in the two drafts. In draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg, the authors use OAuth Dynamic Registration Client Metadata Registry (section 4.1). But in this draft, the authors use the OAuth Dynamic Client Metadata registry. Are the registrations in the current draft dependent on the approval of draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg? What should the name of the new registry be? IANA also onotes that the proposed registration procedure will be listed as "Specification Required," and a note will be added to the top of the registry that says "See [RFC-to-be] for mailing list information." "Specification Required" needs expert review. Do the authos intend that there be both Expert Review and review on a mailing list? IANA understands that the two registrations noted above are the only ones requested in the current draft. 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. |
|
2015-03-23
|
10 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
|
2015-03-22
|
10 | Justin Richer | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-management-10.txt |
|
2015-03-13
|
09 | Kathleen Moriarty | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
|
2015-03-12
|
09 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Peter Yee |
|
2015-03-12
|
09 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Peter Yee |
|
2015-03-12
|
09 | Kathleen Moriarty | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-04-09 |
|
2015-03-12
|
09 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Ben Laurie |
|
2015-03-12
|
09 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Ben Laurie |
|
2015-03-11
|
09 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tom Taylor |
|
2015-03-11
|
09 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tom Taylor |
|
2015-03-09
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
|
2015-03-09
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | 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 Sender: … 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 Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-management-09.txt> (OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration Management Protocol) to Experimental RFC The IESG has received a request from the Web Authorization Protocol WG (oauth) to consider the following document: - 'OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration Management Protocol' <draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-management-09.txt> as Experimental 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 2015-03-23. 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 specification defines methods for management of dynamic OAuth 2.0 client registrations for use cases in which the properties of a registered client may need to be changed during the lifetime of the client. Not all authorization servers supporting dynamic client registration will support these management methods. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-management/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-management/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
|
2015-03-09
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
|
2015-03-09
|
09 | Kathleen Moriarty | Last call was requested |
|
2015-03-09
|
09 | Kathleen Moriarty | Ballot approval text was generated |
|
2015-03-09
|
09 | Kathleen Moriarty | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
|
2015-03-09
|
09 | Kathleen Moriarty | Last call announcement was generated |
|
2015-03-09
|
09 | Kathleen Moriarty | Last call announcement was generated |
|
2015-03-03
|
09 | Hannes Tschofenig | Shepherd Writeup for draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-management-09.txt (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the … Shepherd Writeup for draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-management-09.txt (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? This document is target as an "Experimental RFC". There was sentiment in the working group that other solution appropriates are viable. It was therefore decided that the wider community would benefit from the documented protocol as a means to gain implementation and deployment experience. (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 The OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration Management Protocol defines methods for management of dynamic OAuth 2.0 client registrations for use cases in which the properties of a registered client may need to be changed during the lifetime of the client. Working Group Summary The content of this specification was initially included in the Dynamic Client Registration specification. As result of discussions within the working group it was decided to separate the optional management functionality from the core registration specification. There was sentiment in the working group that other management solution may be viable as well. It was therefore decided that the wider community would benefit from the documented protocol as a means to gain implementation and deployment experience. 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 are implementations available of the specifications, such as the MITRE ID Connect authorization server. All OpenID Connect implementations will support a subset of the functionality. The MITRE ID Connect implementation can be found at: https://github.com/mitreid-connect/OpenID-Connect-Java-Spring-Server/ According to Maciej Machulak Cloud Identity also implements this specification. According to Justin Richer OxAuth (GLUU) also implements this specification. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Hannes Tschofenig is the document shepherd and Kathleen Moriarty 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 document shepherd has carefully reviewed the document. (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 depth and the breadth of 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. Feedback from the operations and management community would be useful due to the nature of the document. (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 shepherd raised concerns regarding the complexity of the credential rotation mechanism but the working group did not express similiar 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. The document authors have confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures have been disclosed. See the responses from the authors here: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg13713.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg13714.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 IPR disclosure regarding this document has been filed. (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? The working group has reached consensus to publish this document as an experimental RFC; consensus for publishing it as a Standards Track document was, however, not possible. (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 expressed extreme discontent. (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. The shepherd has checked the document against the ID nits. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. This document does not require any formal reviews. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? This document has no informative references. (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? This document has a normative dependency on the Dynamic Client Registration Protocol, which is currently in IESG review. (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. There are no downward normative 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. The publication of this document will not lead to the change the status 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). This document adds two entries to a registry created by the 'OAuth Dynamic Client Registration' specification, which is currently in IESG review. (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. This document does not create new 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 includes examples using JSON over HTTP. The shepherd has verified these examples for correctness. |
|
2015-02-26
|
09 | Kathleen Moriarty | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
|
2015-02-26
|
09 | Kathleen Moriarty | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by AD set. |
|
2015-02-26
|
09 | Kathleen Moriarty | Ballot writeup was changed |
|
2015-02-26
|
09 | Kathleen Moriarty | Ballot writeup was generated |
|
2015-02-09
|
09 | Justin Richer | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-management-09.txt |
|
2015-01-27
|
08 | Hannes Tschofenig | Shepherd Writeup for draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-management-08.txt (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the … Shepherd Writeup for draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-management-08.txt (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? This document is target as an "Experimental RFC". There was sentiment in the working group that other solution appropriates are viable. It was therefore decided that the wider community would benefit from the documented protocol as a means to gain implementation and deployment experience. (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 The OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration Management Protocol defines methods for management of dynamic OAuth 2.0 client registrations for use cases in which the properties of a registered client may need to be changed during the lifetime of the client. Working Group Summary The content of this specification was initially included in the Dynamic Client Registration specification. As result of discussions within the working group it was decided to separate the optional management functionality from the core registration specification. There was sentiment in the working group that other management solution may be viable as well. It was therefore decided that the wider community would benefit from the documented protocol as a means to gain implementation and deployment experience. 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 are implementations available of the specifications, such as the MITRE ID Connect authorization server. All OpenID Connect implementations will support a subset of the functionality. The MITRE ID Connect implementation can be found at: https://github.com/mitreid-connect/OpenID-Connect-Java-Spring-Server/ According to Maciej Machulak Cloud Identity also implements this specification. According to Justin Richer OxAuth (GLUU) also implements this specification. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Hannes Tschofenig is the document shepherd and Kathleen Moriarty 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 document shepherd has carefully reviewed the document. (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 depth and the breadth of 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. Feedback from the operations and management community would be useful due to the nature of the document. (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 shepherd raised concerns regarding the complexity of the credential rotation mechanism but the working group did not express similiar 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. The document authors have confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures have been disclosed. See the responses from the authors here: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg13713.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg13714.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 IPR disclosure regarding this document has been filed. (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? The working group has reached consensus to publish this document as an experimental RFC; consensus for publishing it as a Standards Track document was, however, not possible. (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 expressed extreme discontent. (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. The shepherd has checked the document against the ID nits. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. This document does not require any formal reviews. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? This document has no informative references. (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? This document has a normative dependency on the Dynamic Client Registration Protocol, which is currently in IESG review. (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. There are no downward normative 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. The publication of this document will not lead to the change the status 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). This document does not require any actions from IANA. (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. This document does not create new 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 includes examples using JSON over HTTP. The shepherd has verified these examples for correctness. |
|
2015-01-27
|
08 | Hannes Tschofenig | Responsible AD changed to Kathleen Moriarty |
|
2015-01-27
|
08 | Hannes Tschofenig | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document |
|
2015-01-27
|
08 | Hannes Tschofenig | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
|
2015-01-27
|
08 | Hannes Tschofenig | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
|
2015-01-27
|
08 | Hannes Tschofenig | Changed document writeup |
|
2015-01-27
|
08 | Justin Richer | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-management-08.txt |
|
2015-01-27
|
07 | Hannes Tschofenig | Changed document writeup |
|
2015-01-27
|
07 | Hannes Tschofenig | Experimental as agreed by the working group |
|
2015-01-27
|
07 | Hannes Tschofenig | Intended Status changed to Experimental from None |
|
2015-01-27
|
07 | Hannes Tschofenig | Changed document writeup |
|
2015-01-15
|
07 | Justin Richer | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-management-07.txt |
|
2014-12-06
|
06 | Justin Richer | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-management-06.txt |
|
2014-10-29
|
05 | Hannes Tschofenig | Notification list changed to "Hannes Tschofenig" <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net> |
|
2014-10-29
|
05 | Hannes Tschofenig | Document shepherd changed to Hannes Tschofenig |
|
2014-08-26
|
05 | Justin Richer | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-management-05.txt |
|
2014-08-05
|
04 | Michael Jones | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-management-04.txt |
|
2014-08-05
|
03 | Justin Richer | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-management-03.txt |
|
2014-07-03
|
02 | Michael Jones | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-management-02.txt |
|
2014-05-22
|
01 | Michael Jones | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-management-01.txt |
|
2014-02-07
|
00 | Derek Atkins | became a WG Draft |
|
2014-02-07
|
00 | Derek Atkins | This document now replaces draft-jones-oauth-dyn-reg-management instead of None |
|
2014-02-07
|
00 | Michael Jones | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-management-00.txt |