You answered the question "(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?" with a
"yes". Shouldn't this be "no"? If it's really "yes", what document are you
referring to?
I'd change:
"Feedback from the security community would certain be appreciated.
Additionally, it would be helpful to get reviews from outside the group to
ensure that the use cases and the offered security benefits are understood."
to:
"Additional feedback from the security community would be appreciated.
Also, it would be helpful to get additional reviews from outside the group from
people already using assertions to ensure that the use cases and the offered
security benefits are well understood."
I'd change:
"Only a few working group participants have reviewed the document but
enough to move forward with the publication."
to:
"Only a subset of working group participants have reviewed the document
but enough to move forward with the publication. However, because the SAML and
JWT Assertion Profiles based on it have been implemented and are being used by
a number of parties, we have high confidence in the sufficiency and accuracy of
the document text."
Also, I didn't see the implementation statement. Does that go separately?
-- Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Hannes Tschofenig
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 4:31 AM
To: [email protected] WG
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Writeup for Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0
<draft-ietf-oauth-assertions-07>
Here is the writeup I am going to send to Stephen. If there are some last
remarks please let me know. I will submit it once I get the confirm from the
authors that appropriate IPR disclosures have been made.
-------
Writeup for Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 <draft-ietf-oauth-assertions-07>
(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.
Although the document is architectural in nature it is the umbrella document
for two other 'Standards Track' specifications that extend this document with
SAML and JSON specific details.
(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:
The Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 allows the use of assertions
in the form of a new client authentication mechanism
and a new authorization grant type. Mechanisms are specified for
transporting assertions during interactions with a token endpoint, as
well as general processing rules.
The intent of this specification is to provide a common framework for
OAuth 2.0 to interwork with other identity systems using assertions,
and to provide alternative client authentication mechanisms.
Note that this specification only defines abstract message flows and
processing rules. In order to be implementable, companion
specifications are necessary to provide the corresponding concrete
instantiations.
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?
There was no controversy around this document.
Document Quality:
The working group decided to separate the framework for assertion handling from
instance documents supporting SAML assertion and JSON-based encoded tokens.
Readers who want to implement the functionality also need to consult one of the
extension documents.
Personnel:
The document shepherd is Hannes Tschofenig and the responsible area director is
Stephen Farrell.
(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 shepherd has reviewed the document and provided detailed comments.
Those review comments have been taken into account and have lead to
clarifications regarding the claimed security benefits.
(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 but certainly not to
the extend other OAuth working group documents, like the OAuth Core
specification and the OAuth Bearer Token specification, had received. This can
be explained by the focused use cases. The ability to use assertions in the way
described by the document is not needed in every deployment.
(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.
Feedback from the security community would certain be appreciated.
Additionally, it would be helpful to get reviews from outside the group to
ensure that the use cases and the offered security benefits are understood.
(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 still believes that the document authors could have done a better
job in explaining the use cases for which the proposed functionality are
applicable. The concerns have been raised in
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg09961.html
(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?
[Hannes: Dropped authors a mail.]
(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.
(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?
Only a few working group participants have reviewed the document but enough to
move forward with the publication.
(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.
There is one outdated reference: draft-ietf-oauth-urn-sub-ns has been published
as RFC 6755
(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.
No, there is no need for a downref.
(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 adds three values to an existing registry established with RFC
6749.
(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 for examples and no pseudo code is contained that
requires validation.
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
