Hi Hannes,
Just looking at this now. The tracker [1] WG state shows
revised ID needed - was that prior to the publication request
or as a result of the comments on the list since you sent me
this? If the former, I'll do my AD review now, if the latter
then I guess I should wait and review a -13.
Also - are you not able to enter the proto write up into
the WG chair/shepherd tool thing? If so could you do that?
(If you can't I can edit it in but would like to give the
tool a spin if we can.)
Ta,
S.
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer/
On 10/28/2011 07:36 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
Hi Stephen,
the OAuth working group requests publication of draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-12
as Proposed Standard.
Here is the write-up for the document.
-------------------------------------------
Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-12
(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?
The document shepherd is Hannes Tschofenig. I have personally reviewed the
document and I think it is ready for going forward.
(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 received a number of reviews from the working group but also
from members outside the working group, including security reviews.
(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?
The document was reviewed by Julian Reschke for HTTP related content.
Changes to the document have been made in response to his review.
There is still disagreement between Julian and working
group members regarding two issues concerning encoding. While the
shepherd feels comfortable going forward with the specification to
the IESG wider IETF review may provide additional feedback.
One issue is related to the encoding of the scope attribute in context
of HTTP authentication parameters:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg07733.html
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg07734.html
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg07739.html
The other comment by Julian is related to the form encoding, as
described here:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg07731.html
(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 regarding this document but would like to appreciate
feedback from the wider IETF community on the issues raised under
item 1.c.
(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 solid consensus behind this document from the working group.
(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.)
Nobody had shown extreme discontent.
(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?
I have verified the document. The idnits tool gives a warning about
the RFC 2119 boilerplate, and that warning is incorrect.
(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].
The references are split into normative and informative references.
There is one downref to RFC 2818.
(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?
I have reviewed the IANA consideration section.
The documents adds new values into an existing registry.
(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?
The ABNF in the document was verified with
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/browser/abnfparser/bap
(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
This specification describes how to use bearer tokens in HTTP
requests to access OAuth 2.0 protected resources. Any party in
possession of a bearer token (a "bearer") can use it to get access to
granted resources (without demonstrating possession of a
cryptographic key). To prevent misuse, the bearer token MUST be
protected from disclosure in storage and in transport.
Working Group Summary
The working group decided to develop two types of mechanisms for
a client to access a protected resource. The second specification
is being worked on with draft-ietf-oauth-v2-http-mac-00. The
two specifications offer different security properties to allow
deployments to meet their specific needs.
Document Quality
This specification is implemented, deployed and used by Microsoft
Access Control Service (ACS), Google Apps, Facebook Connect and the
Graph API, Salesforce, Mitre, and many others.
Source code is available as well. For example
http://static.springsource.org/spring-security/oauth/
http://incubator.apache.org/projects/amber.html
https://github.com/nov/rack-oauth2
+ many more, including those listed at
https://github.com/teohm/teohm.github.com/wiki/OAuth
-------------------------------------------
Ciao
Hannes
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
