I do not have, nor am I aware of any, IPR on any of the technology in the document.
thanks -cmort On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 1:40 AM, Hannes Tschofenig < hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net> wrote: > Hi all, > > I am working on the shepherd writeup for the JWT bearer document. The > shepherd write-ups for the assertion draft and the SAML bearer document > have been completed a while ago already, see > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg12410.html > > A few requests: > > - To the document authors: Please confirm that any and all appropriate > IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP > 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. > > - To all: Are you aware of implementations of this specification? If so, > I would like to reference them in my write-up. > > - To all: Please also go through the text to make sure that I correctly > reflect the history and the status of this document. > > Here is the most recent version of the write-up: > > https://raw.githubusercontent.com/hannestschofenig/tschofenig-ids/master/shepherd-writeups/Writeup_OAuth_JWT-Assertion-Profile.txt > > > (The copy-and-paste of the full version is below.) > > Ciao > Hannes > > PS: Note that I have send a mail about a pending issue to the list. In > response to my question I will update the write-up accordingly. > > ---- > > Writeup for "JSON Web Token (JWT) Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client > Authentication and Authorization Grants" <draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer-08> > > (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 RFC type is 'Standards Track' and the type is indicated in the title > page. This document defines an instantiation for the OAuth assertion > framework using JSON Web Tokens. > > (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 specification defines the use of a JSON Web Token (JWT) Bearer > Token as a means for requesting an OAuth 2.0 access token as well as > for use as a means of client authentication. > > 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? > > This document belongs to the OAuth assertion document bundle consisting > of the abstract OAuth assertion framework, and the SAML assertion > profile. Due to the use of the JSON-based encoding of the assertion it > also relies on the work in the JOSE working group (such as JWE/JWS) > indirectly through the use of the JWT. This document has intentionally > been kept in sync with the SAML-based version. > > Document Quality: > > This document has gone through many iterations and has received > substantial feedback. > > [[Add implementation list here.]] > > Personnel: > > The document shepherd is Hannes Tschofenig and the responsible area > director is Kathleen Moriarty. > > (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 draft authors believe that this document is ready for publication. > The document has had received review comments from working group > members, and from the OAuth working group chairs. These review comments > have been taken into account. > > (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or > breadth of the reviews that have been performed? > > This document has gotten feedback from the working group and given the > focused use cases it has received adequate review. > > (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. > > Since the OAuth working group develops security protocols any feedback > from the security community is always appreciated. > > (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 has no concerns with this document. > > (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? > > [[Confirmation from the authors required.]] > > (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 disclosures have been filed on this document. However, two IPRs > have been filed for the JWT specification this document relies on, see > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=document_search&id=draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token > > > (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 consensus to publish this document. > > (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 appeal or extreme discontent has been raised. > > (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 nits. > > (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review > criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. > > There is no such review 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? > > Yes. > > (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. > > RFC 6755 defines the urn:ietf:params:oauth URN and is an Informational > RFC. A downref is required. > > However, this document depends on the completion of the abstract OAuth > assertion framework and on the JWT specification. > There are the following dependencies: > > (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 does not change the status of other 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). > > The document registers two sub-namespaces to the urn:ietf:params:oauth > URN established with RFC 6755. > > (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. > > The document only adds entries to existing registries and does not > define any 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. > > There are only snippets of message exchanges and JWT assertion > structures, which are based on JSON, used in the examples. There is no > pseudo code contained in the document that requires validation. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > >
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
