Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-oauth-mtls

(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 request is for a Proposed Standard type for the draft-ietf-oauth-mtls-10
document since the document defines new mechanisms to enhance the security of
the OAuth protocol that has normative extensions to the interaction between the
OAuth Client and OAuth Authorization Server.

(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 document describes OAuth client authentication and certificate
        bound access tokens using mutual Transport Layer Security (TLS)
        authentication with X.509 certificates.  OAuth clients are provided a
        mechanism for authentication to the authorization sever using mutual
        TLS, based on either self-signed certificates or public key
        infrastructure (PKI).  OAuth authorization servers are provided a
        mechanism for binding access tokens to a client's mutual TLS
        certificate, and OAuth protected resources are provided a method for
        ensuring that such an access token presented to it was issued to the
        client presenting the token.

Working Group Summary:
        This work was motivated by a request from OpenBanking UK to allow the
        OAuth Client and OAuth Authorization Server establish a mutually
        authenticated channel.

Document Quality:
        A number of people reviewed the document over several rounds of reviews
        and provided feedback during meetings and on the mailing list, with no
        blocking comments.

        Implementations:
        Ping Identity has implemented one of the two methods, PKI-based method.
        Ping Identity also supports the certificate bound access token.

        Authlete has an implementation of this document.
        https://www.authlete.com/

        ConnectId has an implementation.
        https://connect2id.com/blog/connect2id-server-6.13

        oidc-provider:
        https://github.com/panva/node-oidc-provider

        References:
        OpenBanking UK reference this document
        https://openbanking.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/DZ/pages/83919096/Open+Banking+Security+Profile+-+Implementer+s+Draft+v1.1.2

        OpenID WG reference
        https://bitbucket.org/openid/mobile/src/default/draft-mobile-client-initiated-backchannel-authentication.xml?fileviewer=file-view-default

        OpenID Foundation FAPI WG ref to MTLS
        https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/src/master/Financial_API_WD_002.md?fileviewer=file-view-default

        Berlin Groupā€˜s Nextgen PSD2 Spec:
        https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/c2914b_5351b289bf844c6881e46ee3561d95bb.pdf

Personnel:
        The document shepherd is Rifaat Shekh-Yusef.
        The responsible Area Director is Roman Danyliw.

(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 has reviewed this document and feels the document is
ready.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?

The document shepherd has no concerns with the level of reviews, as the document
was discussed and reviewed by many participants.

(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.

Security review 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 document shepherd has no such concerns.

(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?

Yes.

Brian: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg18200.html
John: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg18264.html
Nat: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg18199.html
Torsten: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg18201.html

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No such IPR disclosures.

(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 was a solid WG consensus that included feedback and support from multiple
parties and individuals.

(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 such threat or discontent.

(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.

Id nits returns that the RFC5246 is obsoleted by RFC 8446.  However, including
references to RFC5246 and RFC8446 is intentional.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No such reviews are 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?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these
downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

No.

(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.

No.

(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 new values with existing registries.
The document does not introduce any new registry.

(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.

The document contains JSON-based examples, and these were validated using
JSONLint.

Back