[OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer Shepherd Write-up

Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net> Wed, 23 April 2014 08:42 UTC

Return-Path: <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B78AF1A0133 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 01:42:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.171
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.171 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_RED=0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FAdq3wiNAUOp for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 01:42:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DACF11A012E for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 01:42:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.131.128] ([80.92.122.106]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx103) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LeeNW-1XH6W82rra-00qSt0 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 10:42:30 +0200
Message-ID: <53577C73.2010201@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 10:40:19 +0200
From: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="eKlbWxBMdlvsqbK8EdlgcS3Q7r6otJWxT"
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:L7ZwMOsaNmA1y4h+HNt/BNJLMvoTOrvZrJzR3hb1xu25hf23uSj 0hYh3FY+wh0uTlceVCOuaU9VWx95tli9mFNYpwoEE/lffweneiRI8pwdx2fCWYfZO07Yz2Q UYRJI67BmoHhdXRAOlM4IC9yCKXYKXLpj9YQGeS/6jchj0B4EKjuSRrIzPMQoe4KKiVeIIi biFEkazTf2mgUdiwhiy0A==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/oN3hDWnyP5hQ0aQSAFUhuy4jVGI
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer Shepherd Write-up
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/>
List-Post: <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 08:42:42 -0000

Hi all,

I am working on the shepherd writeup for the JWT bearer document. The
shepherd write-ups for the assertion draft and the SAML bearer document
have been completed a while ago already, see
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg12410.html

A few requests:

- To the document authors: Please confirm that any and all appropriate
IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP
78 and BCP 79 have already been filed.

- To all: Are you aware of implementations of this specification? If so,
I would like to reference them in my write-up.

- To all: Please also go through the text to make sure that I correctly
reflect the history and the status of this document.

Here is the most recent version of the write-up:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/hannestschofenig/tschofenig-ids/master/shepherd-writeups/Writeup_OAuth_JWT-Assertion-Profile.txt


(The copy-and-paste of the full version is below.)

Ciao
Hannes

PS: Note that I have send a mail about a pending issue to the list. In
response to my question I will update the write-up accordingly.

----

Writeup for "JSON Web Token (JWT) Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client
Authentication and Authorization Grants" <draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer-08>

(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. This document defines an instantiation for the OAuth assertion
framework using JSON Web Tokens.

(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 the use of a JSON Web Token (JWT) Bearer
   Token as a means for requesting an OAuth 2.0 access token as well as
   for use as a means of client authentication.

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?

This document belongs to the OAuth assertion document bundle consisting
of the abstract OAuth assertion framework, and the SAML assertion
profile. Due to the use of the JSON-based encoding of the assertion it
also relies on the work in the JOSE working group (such as JWE/JWS)
indirectly through the use of the JWT. This document has intentionally
been kept in sync with the SAML-based version.

Document Quality:

This document has gone through many iterations and has received
substantial feedback.

[[Add implementation list here.]]

Personnel:

The document shepherd is Hannes Tschofenig 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 draft authors believe that this document is ready for publication.
The document has had received review comments from working group
members, and from the OAuth working group chairs. These review comments
have been taken into account.

(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 and given the
focused use cases it has received adequate review.

(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.

Since the OAuth working group develops security protocols any feedback
from the security community is always appreciated.

(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 has no concerns with this 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?

[[Confirmation from the authors required.]]

(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 on this document. However, two IPRs
have been filed for the JWT specification this document relies on, see
http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=document_search&id=draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token


(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?

The working group has consensus to publish 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.)

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.

The shepherd has checked the nits.

(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.

RFC 6755 defines the urn:ietf:params:oauth URN and is an Informational
RFC. A downref is required.

However, this document depends on the completion of the abstract OAuth
assertion framework and on the JWT specification.
There are the following dependencies:

(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 registers two sub-namespaces to the urn:ietf:params:oauth
URN established with RFC 6755.

(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 of message exchanges and JWT assertion
structures, which are based on JSON, used in the examples. There is no
pseudo code contained in the document that requires validation.