Hi all, I have updated the shepherd writeup for version -06 of the "OAuth 2.0 Authorization Server Metadata" draft in preparation for the meeting. If everything goes well then we will submit this document to the IESG during the IETF meeting week.
Comments appreciated! Here is the most recent version: https://github.com/hannestschofenig/tschofenig-ids/blob/master/shepherd-writeups/Writeup_OAuth_Metadata.txt Ciao Hannes ----------- Shepherd Write-Up for "OAuth 2.0 Authorization Server Metadata" <draft-ietf-oauth-discovery-06> (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 specification is targeting a 'Proposed Standard'. The type of RFC is indicated and contains protocols elements. (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 a metadata format that an OAuth 2.0 client can use to obtain the information needed to interact with an OAuth 2.0 authorization server, including its endpoint locations and authorization server capabilities. Working Group Summary Work on a discovery mechanism for OAuth was planned since a long time but it took till late 2015 before a document was submitted to the group, which re-used work done in the OpenID Foundation. When the WGLC was started in 2016, see https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg15796.html, feedback resulted in refocusing the scope of the specification, removing everything except for the authorization server metadata. Now, almost a year later these concerns have been resolved and the document is ready for publication. 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? The document scope has been changed to capture current deployment practice. There are 34 authorization server and 9 OAuth client implementations listed at http://openid.net/certification/ that implement metadata compatible with the AS metadata specification. (See the "Config OP" and "Config RP" columns.) Microsoft and Google are using this specification in deployment. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Hannes Tschofenig is the document shepherd 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 document shepherd was involved in the working group review process and verified the document for correctness. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? There are no concerns regarding the document 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. This document would benefit from security and internationalization reviews. Particularly Section 4 of the document explaining string operations deserves a review. (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 document shepherd has no concerns with the 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. The authors have confirmed full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79: John: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg17060.html Mike: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg17061.html Nat: TBD (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 for this document. (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? There is consensus in the working group for publishing 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.) Nobody threatened an appeal or expressed extreme discontent with the current version of the document. (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 checked the document. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal review is needed. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. The references are split into normative and 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? The RFCs listed in the normative reference section are all finalized. (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 four normative references to non-IETF specifications: [UNICODE] The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard", <http://www.unicode.org/versions/latest/>. [USA15] Davis, M. and K. Whistler, "Unicode Normalization Forms", Unicode Standard Annex 15, June 2015, <http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr15/>. [OAuth.Post] Jones, M. and B. Campbell, "OAuth 2.0 Form Post Response Mode", April 2015, <http://openid.net/specs/ oauth-v2-form-post-response-mode-1_0.html>. [OAuth.Responses] de Medeiros, B., Ed., Scurtescu, M., Tarjan, P., and M. Jones, "OAuth 2.0 Multiple Response Type Encoding Practices", February 2014, <http://openid.net/specs/ oauth-v2-multiple-response-types-1_0.html>. (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. This document does not change the status of an existing RFC. (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 request any actions by 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. None. (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 is no text in formal languages in the document.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
