Shepherd Write-up for draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-24
(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
draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-22 is a 'Standards Track' that defines a
protocol mechanism for use between an OAuth 2.0 client and an
(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:
This specification defines mechanisms for dynamically registering OAuth
2.0 clients with authorization servers. Registration requests send a set
of desired client metadata values to the authorization server and the
resulting registration responses return a client identifier to use at
the authorization server and the client metadata values registered for
the client. The client can then use this registration information to
communicate with the authorization server using the OAuth 2.0 protocol.
Working Group Summary:
The work on this document has gone through many iterations but there is
strong agreement behind the document. The document has experienced
working group last call twice: the first WGLC was in May 2013, which
revealed different deployment preferences by various OAuth participants.
Here is the link to the initial working group last call:
To resolve those disagreements took some time and a new working group
last call was started in April 2014 after the document was re-factored
and controversial parts had been moved to another specification.
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
Various implementations of the dynamic client registration protocol
exist. Examples of implementations can be found in the UMA and in the
OpenID Connect context, such as phpOIDC (see https://bitbucket.org/PEOFIAMP/phpoidc)
Gluu, and Cloud Identity (as reported at the Kantara Initiative website
from an interop event that took place this year):
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Hannes Tschofenig is the document shepherd 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
The document shepherd has reviewed several iterations of this document
and also the last version of this document. In a late stage of
development various meta-data atttributes have been included in this
(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 regarding the level of detail. The
specification has been extensively discussed and reviewed in the working
(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
Security review for OAuth specifications are always appreciated. Section
2.2 also contains human readable meta-data that could benefit from a
(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
The document shepherd has no concerns with the latest version of the
(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?
A copyright question was raised during the work on the document and got
later resolved with the input from Scott Bradner and Jorge Contreras.
John Bradley confirmed that text contributed from the OpenID Connect
specification was in accordance with the OpenID Foundation copyright
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
No IPR disclosure has 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?
There is solid consensus behind 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.)
Nobody has threatened an appeal or indicated extreme 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
The shepherd has verified the nits.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No such review is necessary.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
Yes. The references are split into normative and informative references.
(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?
The publication of this document is dependent on the completion of other
OAuth documents currently in IESG review, namely the JOSE documents and
the OAuth assertion drafts.
(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.
There are no downward references.
(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.
This document does not change the status of any existing RFC.
(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 IANA considerations are complete and correct.
(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.
This document creates two new IANA registries: a) Client Metadata
Registry b) Endpoint Authentication Methods Registry
The policy for each of these new registries is described in Section 5.1
and Section 5.2, respectively. Regarding the selection of a suitable
expert a person familiar with OAuth 2.0 would be a beneficial.
The document populates the registries with an initial set
of values. Those values are correct and match the main body of the
(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 only contains examples based on JSON structures and those
have been validated with JSONLint.