Shepherd Write-Up for "OAuth 2.0 Pushed Authorization Requests" <draft-ietf-oauth-par-07>
(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?
This specification is proposed as a 'Standards Track' document. The
type of RFC is indicated. The spec defines extensions to OAuth 2.0.
(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 defines the pushed authorization request endpoint,
which allows clients to push the payload of an OAuth 2.0
authorization request to the authorization server via a direct
request and provides them with a request URI that is used as
reference to the data in a subsequent call to the authorization
endpoint.
Working Group Summary
The document changes the way to interact with the authorization
request endpoint. The use of this work is envisioned within the
finance sector.
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?
Based on feedback provided by participants of the OAuth working group
the following implementations of PAR are available:
Open source framework implementing PAR (with optional JWSREQ) in Golang:
https://github.com/zntrio/solid
Authlete supports PAR and has passed the PAR test cases in the OpenID
conformance suite. Documents mentioning Authlete's PAR support are here:
https://www.authlete.com/news/20210204_authlete_2_2/https://www.authlete.com/developers/relnotes/2.2/
The Node.js open source openid-client project:
https://github.com/panva/node-openid-client
Glewlwyd 2.5.2 supports PAR:
https://github.com/babelouest/glewlwyd
PAR is supported by the Connect2id server and the the open source OAuth 2.0 / OIDC SDK,
which has also been picked up by some downstream security frameworks and projects:
https://connect2id.com/blog/pushed-authorisation-request-in-oauth-sdk
The Yes Signing Flow is based on PAR and therefore implemented by our banks (> 1000).
A python client for the yes signing flow is publicly available that uses PAR:
https://github.com/yescom/pyyes
Authress supports PAR.
The Node.js open source oidc-provider project implements PAR behind a feature flag:
https://github.com/panva/node-oidc-provider
The open source project "Loginbuddy" implements PAR and the functionality is
documented here:
https://github.com/SaschaZeGerman/loginbuddy/wiki/Protocols-and-APIs
PingFederate has officially released PAR, see
https://docs.pingidentity.com/bundle/pingfederate-102/page/qem1584122852896.html
Finally, ForgeRock plans to implement PAR.
Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Director?
Hannes Tschofenig is the document shepherd and 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 was involved in the working group review process
and verified the document for correctness.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
There are no concerns regarding the document reviews.
(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.
There are no specific reviews needed.
(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 concerns with the 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.
The authors have confirmed full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79:
Torsten: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/UThbquRJSBn8lKLOju847-4T5NI/
Brian: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/7_WI9fKVsYyZjeZx5f-Y7DGD1y0/
Nat: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/D1WVNkFyuNHY-hji1-sOCVQFWdI/
Dave: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/Wizp_8oSIaJCFCbMVvA3oZITCBc/
Filip: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/edmRupNwGj-5C6OgJQ5ak4HNEeQ/
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
No, there have been no IPR disclosures filed on the documennt.
(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 in the working group for publishing 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 threatened an appeal or expressed 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
thorough.
The shepherd checked the document.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No formal review is needed.
(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?
Among the normative references is a draft (draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq) and
a non-IETF document. draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq is pending publication as
an RFC.
The non-IETF document has been published by the OpenID Foundation,
an organization that defined extensions to OAuth. Here is the reference:
[OIDC] Sakimura, N., Bradley, J., Jones, M., de Medeiros, B., and
C. Mortimore, "OpenID Connect Core 1.0 incorporating
errata set 1", 8 November 2014,
<http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html>.
(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 an 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).
This document adds values to previously created registries, namely
* the OAuth Authorization Server Metadata registry,
* the OAuth Dynamic Client Registration Metadata registry, and
* the OAuth URI registry.
The registries are clearly identified.
(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.
There are no new registries created by this specification.
(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 basic JSON examples and those have been verified
by the shepherd.