(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 document
adds new parameter for requests sent by a Client to an Authorization Server.
The type of RFC is indicated in the title page header.
(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:
An extension to the OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework defining request
parameters that enable a client to explicitly signal to an authorization server
about the identity of the protected resource(s) to which it is requesting
Working Group Summary:
The document adds new parameter for requests sent by a Client to an
The document received many reviews and feedbacks from multiple WG members on the
mailing list and during the WG meetings.
The document was updated to reflect a late review to make sure that the document
makes it clear that the parameter might carry a location or an abstract identifier.
The document has been implemented by the following:
* Ping has an implementation but with a different parameter name ("aud"):
* Auth0 has an implementation but with a different parameter name ("audience"):
* Node.JS Open Source oidc-provider implements the draft in full
* ARM has an implementation as pard of the Pelion Secure Device Access (SDA) product:
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 the 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 needed and 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?
(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.
* Outdated reference of draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-16
* Section 1, first paragraph, last word: should be "the" instead of "The"
* Section 1, second paragraph, second last line: "the the" should be "the"
(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?
No such references.
(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 such 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.
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).
The IANA section is not complete yet.
There are two TODOs that depend on draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange.
(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.
No new IANA 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 JSON-based examples, and these were validated using