(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 draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bcp-03 is a Best Current Practice document providing actionable guidance leading to secure implementation and deployment of JWTs. The group decided that a Best Current Practice document, which can evolve over time, is the best way to improve the quality and security of JWT implementations and deployments.
(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:
JSON Web Tokens, also known as JWTs, are URL-safe JSON-based security
tokens that contain a set of claims that can be signed and/or
encrypted. JWTs are being widely used and deployed as a simple
security token format in numerous protocols and applications, both in
the area of digital identity, and in other application areas. The
goal of this Best Current Practices document is to provide actionable
guidance leading to secure implementation and deployment of JWTs.
Working Group Summary:
This document has been written in response to reports about insecure implementations and deployments of JWT.
The working group is in agreement that this document provides value to the community.
The document has received substantial review and suggestions for threat mitigations to cover. Many of the recommendations have been provided by researchers and implementers outside the working group.
The document shepherd is Hannes Tschofenig.
The responsible Area Director is Eric Rescorla.
(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. The shepherd has, however, already asked the IETF security community for review of this document.
(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, all three authors have confirmed:
- Mike: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg18195.html
- Dick: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg18196.html
- Yaron: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg18197.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 is a solid support for this document from the WG.
(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.
There are no nits with this document.
(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?
(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?
(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.
There is a downref for RFC 6979. It is an algorithm document that is appropriate as a normative reference.
(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 status change of any existing 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).
There is no action for IANA.
(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.
(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 no formal languages.