Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Shepherd Update for AS Server Metadata

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 22:12:33 +0200

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.

---

From: Mike Jones <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 22:18:26 +0000

Actually, there are IANA actions – creating and populating a registry. Please update the shepherd review accordingly.

Other than that, it looks good.

Thanks,

-- Mike

From: Hannes Tschofenig<mailto:[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2017 3:12 PM
To: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Shepherd Update for AS Server Metadata

Hi all,

Comments appreciated!

Ciao
Hannes

-----------

Technical Summary

Working Group Summary

Document Quality

Personnel

   [OAuth.Post]

   [OAuth.Responses]

None.