[GNAP] Protocol Action: 'Grant Negotiation and Authorization Protocol Resource Server Connections' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-gnap-resource-servers-09.txt)

The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Fri, 18 October 2024 17:53 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <172927403936.1515022.15865965087032692922@dt-datatracker-78dc5ccf94-w8wgc>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2024 10:53:59 -0700
Message-ID-Hash: NC5B6EYKJMNEUQPCFINF2FOVG6VEXGEM
CC: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, debcooley1@gmail.com, draft-ietf-gnap-resource-servers@ietf.org, gnap-chairs@ietf.org, leifj@mnt.se, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, txauth@ietf.org
Subject: [GNAP] Protocol Action: 'Grant Negotiation and Authorization Protocol Resource Server Connections' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-gnap-resource-servers-09.txt)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/txauth/fYmJDPxXiH60fmFz0C8DKmacL3c>

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Grant Negotiation and Authorization Protocol Resource Server
   Connections'
  (draft-ietf-gnap-resource-servers-09.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Grant Negotiation and Authorization
Protocol Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Paul Wouters and Deb Cooley.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-gnap-resource-servers/




Technical Summary

   GNAP defines a mechanism for delegating authorization to a piece of
   software (the client), and conveying the results and artifacts of
   that delegation to the software.  This extension defines methods for
   resource servers (RS) to connect with authorization servers (AS) in
   an interoperable fashion.

Working Group Summary

   Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
   For example, was there controversy about particular points 
   or were there decisions where the consensus was
   particularly rough? 

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?

Personnel

   The Document Shepherd for this document is Leif Johansson. The
   Responsible Area Director is Deb Cooley.

IANA Note

  (Insert IANA Note here or remove section)

[GNAP] Protocol Action: 'Grant Negotiation and Au… The IESG