On Dec 1, 2024, at 2:51 AM, torsten=40lodderstedt....@dmarc.ietf.org wrote:
Hi,
please find my responses inline.
best regards,
Torsten.
Am 16. Nov. 2024, 22:13 +0100 schrieb rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org:
Authors,
While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the
following questions, which are also in the XML file.
1) <!--[rfced] FYI, the title of the document has been updated as
follows. Abbreviations have been expanded per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322
("RFC Style Guide"). Please review.
Original:
JWT Response for OAuth Token Introspection
Current:
JSON Web Token (JWT) Response for OAuth Token Introspection
--> Ok.
2) <!--[rfced] FYI, regarding the use of <tt> within this document, it renders
(using xml2rfc) in fixed-width font in the HTML and PDF files. However,
the rendering of <tt> in the text file was changed in September 2021 -
quotation marks are no longer added. When you review the diff file for
this document, it will appear that the RPC removed quotation marks;
however, actually this is due to the rendering change for <tt>.
(For details, see the release notes for v3.10.0 on
https://github.com/ietf-tools/xml2rfc/blob/main/CHANGELOG.md)
Examples of where <tt> is used in the original (and remains):
alg value, enc value
Accept HTTP header field
aud claim, token_introspection claim
typ JWT header
-->
I think this is acceptable.
3) <!--[rfced] May we update this sentence as follows, to clarify the
phrase "additional JSON Web Token (JWT) secured response"?
Original:
This specification proposes an additional JSON Web Token (JWT)
secured response for OAuth 2.0 Token Introspection.
Perhaps:
This specification proposes an additional response secured by
JSON Web Token (JWT) for OAuth 2.0 Token Introspection.
--> wfm
4) <!--[rfced] Please clarify the latter part of this sentence.
What is "identifying it as subject" referring to?
Original:
Authentication can utilize client authentication methods
or a separate access token issued to the resource server and
identifying it as subject.
Perhaps (referring to the resource server):
Authentication can utilize client authentication methods
or a separate access token issued to the RS to
identify the RS as the subject.
Or (also referring to the resource server):
Authentication can utilize client authentication methods
or a separate access token that is issued to the RS and
identifies the RS as the subject.
--> Please use this text.
5) <!--[rfced] We are having some difficulty parsing this sentence,
specifically "a dedicated containing JWT claim". How should
it be updated?
Original:
The separation of the introspection response
members into a dedicated containing JWT claim is intended to
prevent conflict and confusion with top-level JWT claims that
may bear the same name.
Perhaps:
The separation of the introspection response
members into a dedicated, contained JWT claim is intended to
prevent conflict and confusion with top-level JWT claims that
may bear the same name.
--> It seems we missed one important word „JSON object“.
The separation of the introspection response
members into a dedicated JSON object, containing JWT claim is intended to
prevent conflict and confusion with top-level JWT claims that
may bear the same name.
6) <!--[rfced] Please review whether any of the notes in this document
should be in the <aside> element. It is defined as "a container for
content that is semantically less important or tangential to the
content that surrounds it"
(https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/xml2rfc-doc.html#name-aside-2).
--> Our notes are not less important than the rest of the text. It is more like
„please consider“.
7) <!--[rfced] draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics (RFC-to-be 9700) does not
have a Section 3.2. How this should be updated? Please
see https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9700.html
Original:
Resource servers MUST additionally apply the countermeasures against
replay as described in [I-D.ietf-oauth-security-topics], section 3.2.
--> 3.2. has become 2.2. I would nevertheless change the text to referring to
the draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics (RFC-to-be 9700) more general and frame the
topic more precisely.
Here is my proposal:
Resource servers MUST additionally apply the countermeasures against
access token replay as described in [I-D.ietf-oauth-security-topics].
8) <!--[rfced] RFC 7525 has been obsoleted by RFC 9325. Also,
RFC 7525 is no longer part of BCP 195. How should this sentence
be updated?
Original:
The authorization server MUST use Transport Layer Security (TLS) 1.2
(or higher) per BCP 195 [RFC7525] in order to prevent token data
leakage.
Perhaps (A), if simple replacement is accurate:
The authorization server MUST use Transport Layer Security (TLS) 1.2
(or higher) per BCP 195 [RFC9325] in order to prevent token data
leakage. Please use this text.
Or (B), if referencing the whole BCP (RFC 8996 + RFC 9325) is accurate:
The authorization server MUST use Transport Layer Security (TLS) 1.2
(or higher) per [BCP195] in order to prevent token data leakage.
-->
9) <!--[rfced] FYI, in Sections 10.1.1, 10.2.1, and 10.4.1,
the change controller has been updated from "IESG" to "IETF" to match
the actual IANA registries. This was noted as follows in the mail
from IANA: "Note: in accordance with recent practice, the change controller
for these registrations has been changed from the IESG to the IETF."
This is in keeping with IANA's "Guidance for RFC Authors" (on
https://www.iana.org/help/protocol-registration):
"The IESG shouldn't be listed as a change controller unless the RFC that
created the registry (e.g. port numbers, XML namespaces and schemas)
requires it. The IETF should be named instead."
We have also updated the change controller in Section 10.3.1 accordingly. I
guess you mean 11.3.1?
If that is not accurate, please let us know.
--> wfm
10) <!-- [rfced] For sourcecode elements, please consider whether the
"type" attribute should be set and/or has been set correctly.
The current list of preferred values for "type" is available at
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types>.
If the current list does not contain an applicable type, feel free to
suggest additions for consideration. Note that it is also acceptable
to leave the "type" attribute not set.
--> 1 and 2 -> http-message
3 and 4 -> json
11) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online
Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically
result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers.
Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should
still be reviewed as a best practice.
-->
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I reviewed the document using the
guidance given by the NIST documents and don’t see any issues with the current
text.
Thank you. Thank you for your hard work!
RFC Editor/ap/ar
On Nov 16, 2024, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote:
*****IMPORTANT*****
Updated 2024/11/16
RFC Author(s):
--------------
Instructions for Completing AUTH48
Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and
approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.
If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies
available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).
You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties
(e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing
your approval.
Planning your review
---------------------
Please review the following aspects of your document:
* RFC Editor questions
Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor
that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as
follows:
<!-- [rfced] ... -->
These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
* Changes submitted by coauthors
Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your
coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you
agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
* Content
Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot
change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to:
- IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
- contact information
- references
* Copyright notices and legends
Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions
(TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
* Semantic markup
Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of
content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode>
and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at
<https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.
* Formatted output
Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the
formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is
reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting
limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
Submitting changes
------------------
To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all
the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties
include:
* your coauthors
* rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (the RPC team)
* other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g.,
IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the
responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
* auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival mailing list
to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion
list:
* More info:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
* The archive itself:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
* Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out
of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you
have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded,
auth48archive@rfc-editor.org will be re-added to the CC list and
its addition will be noted at the top of the message.
You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
An update to the provided XML file
— OR —
An explicit list of changes in this format
Section # (or indicate Global)
OLD:
old text
NEW:
new text
You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit
list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text,
and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in
the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.
Approving for publication
--------------------------
To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.
Files
-----
The files are available here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9701.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9701.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9701.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9701.txt
Diff file of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9701-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9701-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
Diff of the XML:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9701-xmldiff1.html
Tracking progress
-----------------
The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9701
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your cooperation,
RFC Editor
--------------------------------------
RFC9701 (draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-introspection-response-12)
Title : JWT Response for OAuth Token Introspection
Author(s) : T. Lodderstedt, Ed., V. Dzhuvinov
WG Chair(s) : Hannes Tschofenig, Rifaat Shekh-Yusef
Area Director(s) : Deb Cooley, Paul Wouters
