OAuth 2.0 Security Best Current Practice
draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-26
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2024-04-21
|
26 | (System) | Changed action holders to Roman Danyliw (IESG state changed) |
2024-04-21
|
26 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed |
2024-04-21
|
26 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2024-04-21
|
26 | Torsten Lodderstedt | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-26.txt |
2024-04-21
|
26 | (System) | New version approved |
2024-04-21
|
26 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andrey Labunets , Daniel Fett , John Bradley , Torsten Lodderstedt |
2024-04-21
|
26 | Torsten Lodderstedt | Uploaded new revision |
2024-02-27
|
25 | Carlos Pignataro | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events' |
2024-02-27
|
25 | Carlos Pignataro | Assignment of request for Last Call review by OPSDIR to Jouni Korhonen was marked no-response |
2024-02-22
|
25 | Roman Danyliw | Please review and revise per the IETF LC ARTART review. |
2024-02-22
|
25 | (System) | Changed action holders to Torsten Lodderstedt, John Bradley, Andrey Labunets, Daniel Fett (IESG state changed) |
2024-02-22
|
25 | Roman Danyliw | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2024-02-22
|
25 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2024-02-21
|
25 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2024-02-21
|
25 | David Dong | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-25, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-25, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions. While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. For definitions of IANA review states, please see: https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review Thank you, David Dong IANA Services Sr. Specialist |
2024-02-18
|
25 | Russ Housley | Request for Last Call review by ARTART Completed: Almost Ready. Reviewer: Russ Housley. Sent review to list. |
2024-02-18
|
25 | Thomas Fossati | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Thomas Fossati. Sent review to list. |
2024-02-15
|
25 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Thomas Fossati |
2024-02-15
|
25 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Michael Jones |
2024-02-13
|
25 | Carlos Pignataro | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jouni Korhonen |
2024-02-12
|
25 | Dhruv Dhody | Assignment of request for Last Call review by OPSDIR to Dhruv Dhody was rejected |
2024-02-12
|
25 | Barry Leiba | Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Russ Housley |
2024-02-12
|
25 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Dhruv Dhody |
2024-02-08
|
25 | Liz Flynn | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2024-02-08
|
25 | Liz Flynn | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-02-22): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Hannes Tschofenig , draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics@ietf.org, hannes.tschofenig@arm.com, oauth-chairs@ietf.org, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-02-22): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Hannes Tschofenig , draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics@ietf.org, hannes.tschofenig@arm.com, oauth-chairs@ietf.org, oauth@ietf.org, rdd@cert.org Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (OAuth 2.0 Security Best Current Practice) to Best Current Practice The IESG has received a request from the Web Authorization Protocol WG (oauth) to consider the following document: - 'OAuth 2.0 Security Best Current Practice' as Best Current Practice The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-02-22. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document describes best current security practice for OAuth 2.0. It updates and extends the threat model and security advice given in [RFC6749], [RFC6750], and [RFC6819] to incorporate practical experiences gathered since OAuth 2.0 was published and covers new threats relevant due to the broader application of OAuth 2.0. It further deprecates some modes of operation that are deemed less secure or even insecure. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. The document contains these normative downward references. See RFC 3967 for additional information: rfc6819: OAuth 2.0 Threat Model and Security Considerations (Informational - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)) |
2024-02-08
|
25 | Liz Flynn | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2024-02-08
|
25 | Roman Danyliw | Last call was requested |
2024-02-08
|
25 | Roman Danyliw | Last call announcement was generated |
2024-02-08
|
25 | Roman Danyliw | Ballot approval text was generated |
2024-02-08
|
25 | Roman Danyliw | Ballot writeup was generated |
2024-02-08
|
25 | Roman Danyliw | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2024-02-08
|
25 | (System) | Changed action holders to Roman Danyliw (IESG state changed) |
2024-02-08
|
25 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed |
2024-02-08
|
25 | Torsten Lodderstedt | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-25.txt |
2024-02-08
|
25 | Daniel Fett | New version approved |
2024-02-08
|
25 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andrey Labunets , Daniel Fett , John Bradley , Torsten Lodderstedt |
2024-02-08
|
25 | Torsten Lodderstedt | Uploaded new revision |
2024-02-08
|
24 | Roman Danyliw | Follow-up to AD Review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/X85rDqdA-XZFrCKl_5nG4iORb0s/ |
2023-12-18
|
24 | Roman Danyliw | AD Review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/bTb-cLGsgUo9cWo5D1UFSwIGWtU/ |
2023-12-18
|
24 | (System) | Changed action holders to Roman Danyliw, Torsten Lodderstedt, John Bradley, Andrey Labunets, Daniel Fett (IESG state changed) |
2023-12-18
|
24 | Roman Danyliw | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from Publication Requested |
2023-11-03
|
24 | Hannes Tschofenig | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-24 ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-24 ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? This document has been in development for a long time with review from many working group participants.There is broad agreement to publish this document. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? The document updates security recommendations made in other documents and recommends against the use of some functionality from the OAuth 2.0 protocol. Changes have gone through long discussions and sometimes required new standardization efforts in the OAuth working group to address open issues. The group is, however, after all the work happy with the content. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize 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 expressed extreme discontent. 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? The document summarizes security recommendations from a number of OAuth specifications and therefore there are many implementations of this specification available.The open banking sector, in particular, implements the guidelines provided by this specification. ## Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. OAuth is a widely used protocol and hence there have been interactions with others. We have, through working group members, made sure that the OpenID Foundation, who uses OAuth as a foundation, is aware of the changes. The changes to the OAuth protocol have been disseminated in workshops, conferences and industry events. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. This document does not need this type of review. 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in [RFC 8342][5]? The document does not use YANG. 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. There is no formal language in the document. ## Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? The document is well written. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? N/A 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? The document requests publiation as a BCP. This has been discussed in the group. 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when applicable. The authors have been asked whether they are aware of any IPR associated with this document: John Bradley: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/hzkf0IXeAUlt5A46QTeRvrzOevc/ Andrey Labunets: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/taFc6PRHzVnp_D4lYJOk2eIoLoY/ Torsten Lodderstedt: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/Z-02xY8-KsEtXDcugMIyzAlUfU4/ Daniel Fett: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/dqOeF8hr5eB_cLfadqroK46duy4/ 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is greater than five, please provide a justification. The authors have not expressed interest to be removed from the document. 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) The shepherd has verified the nits in this document. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. TBD. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? The specification lists a number of academic publications and specifications from other standards developing organizations, such as the W3C. All references are, however, publically available. 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. RFC 6819 is a normative reference to an Informational RFC that is not liste in the DOWNREF registry. A normative reference to the OAuth 2.0 threat model document is appropriate for this type of document. 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state? If so, what is the plan for their completion? All normative references are published RFCs. 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. Yes, this document updates other documents, namely: - RFC 6749 - RFC 6750 - RFC 6819 20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). This document does not require actions by IANA. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. N/A [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ |
2023-11-03
|
24 | Rifaat Shekh-Yusef | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-23 ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-23 ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? This document has been in development for a long time with review from many working group participants. There is broad agreement to publish this document. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? The document updates security recommendations made in other documents and recommends against the use of some functionality from the OAuth 2.0 protocol. Changes have gone through long discussions and sometimes required new standardization efforts in the OAuth working group to address open issues. The group is, however, after all the work happy with the content. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize 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 expressed extreme discontent. 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? TBD: ## Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. OAuth is a widely used protocol and hence there have been interactions with others. We have, through working group members, made sure that the OpenID Foundation, who uses OAuth as a foundation, is aware of the changes. The changes to the OAuth protocol have been disseminated in workshops, conferences and industry events. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. This document does not need this type of review. 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in [RFC 8342][5]? The document does not use YANG. 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. There is no formal language in the document. ## Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? The document is well written. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? The document requests publiation as a BCP. This has been discussed in the group. 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when applicable. TBD 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is greater than five, please provide a justification. TBD 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) TBD. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. TBD. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? TBD. 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. TBD. 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state? If so, what is the plan for their completion? TBD. 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. Yes, this document updates other documents. 20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). This document does not require actions by IANA. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. N/A [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ |
2023-11-03
|
24 | Rifaat Shekh-Yusef | Responsible AD changed to Roman Danyliw |
2023-11-03
|
24 | Rifaat Shekh-Yusef | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2023-11-03
|
24 | Rifaat Shekh-Yusef | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2023-11-03
|
24 | Rifaat Shekh-Yusef | Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested |
2023-10-23
|
24 | Torsten Lodderstedt | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-24.txt |
2023-10-23
|
24 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-10-23
|
24 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andrey Labunets , Daniel Fett , John Bradley , Torsten Lodderstedt |
2023-10-23
|
24 | Torsten Lodderstedt | Uploaded new revision |
2023-10-04
|
23 | Hannes Tschofenig | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-23 ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-23 ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? This document has been in development for a long time with review from many working group participants. There is broad agreement to publish this document. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? The document updates security recommendations made in other documents and recommends against the use of some functionality from the OAuth 2.0 protocol. Changes have gone through long discussions and sometimes required new standardization efforts in the OAuth working group to address open issues. The group is, however, after all the work happy with the content. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize 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 expressed extreme discontent. 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? TBD: ## Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. OAuth is a widely used protocol and hence there have been interactions with others. We have, through working group members, made sure that the OpenID Foundation, who uses OAuth as a foundation, is aware of the changes. The changes to the OAuth protocol have been disseminated in workshops, conferences and industry events. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. This document does not need this type of review. 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in [RFC 8342][5]? The document does not use YANG. 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. There is no formal language in the document. ## Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? The document is well written. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? The document requests publiation as a BCP. This has been discussed in the group. 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when applicable. TBD 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is greater than five, please provide a justification. TBD 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) TBD. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. TBD. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? TBD. 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. TBD. 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state? If so, what is the plan for their completion? TBD. 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. Yes, this document updates other documents. 20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). This document does not require actions by IANA. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. N/A [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ |
2023-06-05
|
23 | Torsten Lodderstedt | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-23.txt |
2023-06-05
|
23 | Daniel Fett | New version approved |
2023-06-05
|
23 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andrey Labunets , Daniel Fett , John Bradley , Torsten Lodderstedt |
2023-06-05
|
23 | Torsten Lodderstedt | Uploaded new revision |
2023-03-13
|
22 | Daniel Fett | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-22.txt |
2023-03-13
|
22 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-03-13
|
22 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andrey Labunets , Daniel Fett , John Bradley , Torsten Lodderstedt |
2023-03-13
|
22 | Daniel Fett | Uploaded new revision |
2022-09-27
|
21 | Daniel Fett | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-21.txt |
2022-09-27
|
21 | (System) | New version approved |
2022-09-27
|
21 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andrey Labunets , Daniel Fett , John Bradley , Torsten Lodderstedt |
2022-09-27
|
21 | Daniel Fett | Uploaded new revision |
2022-07-28
|
20 | Daniel Fett | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-20.txt |
2022-07-28
|
20 | Daniel Fett | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Daniel Fett) |
2022-07-28
|
20 | Daniel Fett | Uploaded new revision |
2022-06-19
|
19 | (System) | Document has expired |
2022-03-16
|
19 | Rifaat Shekh-Yusef | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document |
2021-12-16
|
19 | Daniel Fett | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-19.txt |
2021-12-16
|
19 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-12-16
|
19 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andrey Labunets , Daniel Fett , John Bradley , Torsten Lodderstedt |
2021-12-16
|
19 | Daniel Fett | Uploaded new revision |
2021-10-15
|
18 | (System) | Document has expired |
2021-04-13
|
18 | Daniel Fett | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-18.txt |
2021-04-13
|
18 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-04-13
|
18 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andrey Labunets , Daniel Fett , John Bradley , Torsten Lodderstedt |
2021-04-13
|
18 | Daniel Fett | Uploaded new revision |
2021-04-06
|
17 | Daniel Fett | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-17.txt |
2021-04-06
|
17 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-04-06
|
17 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andrey Labunets , Daniel Fett , John Bradley , Torsten Lodderstedt |
2021-04-06
|
17 | Daniel Fett | Uploaded new revision |
2020-10-05
|
16 | Daniel Fett | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-16.txt |
2020-10-05
|
16 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-10-05
|
16 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniel Fett , John Bradley , Andrey Labunets , Torsten Lodderstedt |
2020-10-05
|
16 | Daniel Fett | Uploaded new revision |
2020-04-05
|
15 | Daniel Fett | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-15.txt |
2020-04-05
|
15 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-04-05
|
15 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andrey Labunets , Daniel Fett , Torsten Lodderstedt , John Bradley |
2020-04-05
|
15 | Daniel Fett | Uploaded new revision |
2020-02-10
|
14 | Daniel Fett | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-14.txt |
2020-02-10
|
14 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-02-10
|
14 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andrey Labunets , Daniel Fett , Torsten Lodderstedt , John Bradley , oauth-chairs@ietf.org |
2020-02-10
|
14 | Daniel Fett | Uploaded new revision |
2020-01-09
|
13 | (System) | Document has expired |
2019-07-08
|
13 | Daniel Fett | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-13.txt |
2019-07-08
|
13 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-07-08
|
13 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andrey Labunets , Daniel Fett , Torsten Lodderstedt , John Bradley |
2019-07-08
|
13 | Daniel Fett | Uploaded new revision |
2019-03-08
|
12 | Daniel Fett | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-12.txt |
2019-03-08
|
12 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-03-08
|
12 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andrey Labunets , Daniel Fett , Torsten Lodderstedt , John Bradley |
2019-03-08
|
12 | Daniel Fett | Uploaded new revision |
2018-12-28
|
11 | Torsten Lodderstedt | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-11.txt |
2018-12-28
|
11 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-12-28
|
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andrey Labunets , Daniel Fett , Torsten Lodderstedt , John Bradley |
2018-12-28
|
11 | Torsten Lodderstedt | Uploaded new revision |
2018-12-01
|
10 | Hannes Tschofenig | Notification list changed to Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@arm.com> |
2018-12-01
|
10 | Hannes Tschofenig | Document shepherd changed to Hannes Tschofenig |
2018-12-01
|
10 | Hannes Tschofenig | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2018-12-01
|
10 | Hannes Tschofenig | Intended Status changed to Best Current Practice from None |
2018-12-01
|
10 | Hannes Tschofenig | This document now replaces draft-lodderstedt-oauth-security-topics instead of None |
2018-11-20
|
10 | Torsten Lodderstedt | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-10.txt |
2018-11-20
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-11-20
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andrey Labunets , Daniel Fett , Torsten Lodderstedt , John Bradley |
2018-11-20
|
10 | Torsten Lodderstedt | Uploaded new revision |
2018-11-09
|
09 | Torsten Lodderstedt | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-09.txt |
2018-11-09
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-11-09
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andrey Labunets , Daniel Fett , Torsten Lodderstedt , John Bradley |
2018-11-09
|
09 | Torsten Lodderstedt | Uploaded new revision |
2018-10-15
|
08 | Torsten Lodderstedt | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-08.txt |
2018-10-15
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-10-15
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andrey Labunets , Daniel Fett , Torsten Lodderstedt , John Bradley |
2018-10-15
|
08 | Torsten Lodderstedt | Uploaded new revision |
2018-08-24
|
07 | Torsten Lodderstedt | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-07.txt |
2018-08-24
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-08-24
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andrey Labunets , Daniel Fett , Torsten Lodderstedt , John Bradley , oauth-chairs@ietf.org |
2018-08-24
|
07 | Torsten Lodderstedt | Uploaded new revision |
2018-05-20
|
06 | Torsten Lodderstedt | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-06.txt |
2018-05-20
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-05-20
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andrey Labunets , Torsten Lodderstedt , John Bradley , oauth-chairs@ietf.org |
2018-05-20
|
06 | Torsten Lodderstedt | Uploaded new revision |
2018-03-18
|
05 | Torsten Lodderstedt | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-05.txt |
2018-03-18
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-03-18
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andrey Labunets , Torsten Lodderstedt , John Bradley |
2018-03-18
|
05 | Torsten Lodderstedt | Uploaded new revision |
2017-11-14
|
04 | Torsten Lodderstedt | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-04.txt |
2017-11-14
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-11-14
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andrey Labunets , Torsten Lodderstedt , John Bradley |
2017-11-14
|
04 | Torsten Lodderstedt | Uploaded new revision |
2017-09-10
|
03 | Torsten Lodderstedt | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-03.txt |
2017-09-10
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-09-10
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Torsten Lodderstedt , Andrey Labunets , John Bradley |
2017-09-10
|
03 | Torsten Lodderstedt | Uploaded new revision |
2017-03-30
|
02 | Torsten Lodderstedt | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-02.txt |
2017-03-30
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-03-30
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Torsten Lodderstedt , Andrey Labunets , John Bradley |
2017-03-30
|
02 | Torsten Lodderstedt | Uploaded new revision |
2017-03-27
|
01 | Torsten Lodderstedt | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-01.txt |
2017-03-27
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-03-27
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Torsten Lodderstedt , Andrey Labunets , John Bradley |
2017-03-27
|
01 | Torsten Lodderstedt | Uploaded new revision |
2017-03-27
|
00 | Torsten Lodderstedt | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-00.txt |
2017-03-27
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2017-03-12
|
00 | Torsten Lodderstedt | Set submitter to "Torsten Lodderstedt ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: oauth-chairs@ietf.org |
2017-03-12
|
00 | Torsten Lodderstedt | Uploaded new revision |