Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 07:00:05 -0700

While Mike is working on a small update for draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer (to be re-submitted soon) I have been compiling the document shepherd write-up. 
This writeup will be attached to the draft when I send it to the IESG. 

I thought I should share it with you just in case you have some additional remarks.

----------

Document Shepherd Write-Up for (to-be-submitted) draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-11

  (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. 

  (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. 

  (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. 

  (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. 

  (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 RFC 2119 boilerplate 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 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