Token Status List (TSL)
draft-ietf-oauth-status-list-14

Request for IETF Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Dale Worley. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-oauth-status-list-13. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are nine actions which we must complete.

First, in the JSON Web Token Claims registry in the JSON Web Token (JWT) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/jwt/

three new JSON Web Token Claims are to be registered as follows:

Claim Name: status
Claim Description: A JSON object containing a reference to a status mechanism from the JWT Status Mechanisms Registry.
Change Controller: IETF
Specification Document(s): [ RFC-to-be; Section 6.1 ]

Claim Name: status_list
Claim Description: A JSON object containing up-to-date status information on multiple tokens using the Token Status List mechanism.
Change Controller: IETF
Specification Document(s): [ RFC-to-be; Section 5.1 ]

Claim Name: ttl
Claim Description: Time to Live
Change Controller: IETF
Specification Document(s): [ RFC-to-be; Section 5.1 ]

As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

Second, a new registry is to be created called the JWT Status Mechanisms registry. The new registry will located in the JSON Web Token (JWT) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/jwt/

The registry will be managed via Specification Required as defined by RFC8126. The registry will contain a note indicating that registrations require a three-week review period on the jwt-reg-review@ietf.org mailing list and that a registration template is available in [ RFC-to-be; Section 14.2.1 ]. There is a single initial registration in the new registry as follows:

Status Mechanism Value: status_list
Status Mechanism Description: A Token Status List containing up-to-date status information on multiple tokens.
Change Controller: IETF
Specification Document(s): [ RFC-to-be; Section 6.2 ]

Third, in the CBOR Web Token (CWT) Claims registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/cwt/

three new Web Token Claims are to be registered as follows:

Claim Name: status
Claim Description: A CBOR structure containing a reference to a status mechanism from the CWT Status Mechanisms Registry.
JWT Claim Name: status
Claim Key: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Claim Value Type: map
Change Controller: IETF
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 6.1 ]

Claim Name: status_list
Claim Description: A CBOR structure containing up-to-date status information on multiple tokens using the Token Status List mechanism.
JWT Claim Name: status_list
Claim Key: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Claim Value Type: map
Change Controller: IETF
Specification Document(s): [ RFC-to-be; Section 5.2 ]

Claim Name: ttl
Claim Description: Time to Live
JWT Claim Name: ttl
Claim Key: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Claim Value Type: unsigned integer
Change Controller: IETF
Specification Document(s): [ RFC-to-be; Section 5.2 ]

IANA notes that the authors have requested Claim Keys of 65535, 65533 and 65534 for these registrations.

As this also requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

Fourth, a new registry is to be created called the CWT Status Mechanisms. The new registry will be located in the CBOR Web Token (CWT) Claims registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/cwt/

The registry will be managed via Specification Required as defined by RFC8126. The registry will contain a note indicating that registrations require a three-week review period on the cwt-reg-review@ietf.org mailing list and that a registration template is available in [ RFC-to-be; Section 14.4.1 ]. There is a single, initial registration in the new registry as follows:

Status Mechanism Value: status_list
Status Mechanism Description: A Token Status List containing up-to-date status information on multiple tokens.
Change Controller: IETF
Specification Document(s): [ RFC-to-be; Section 6.3 ]

Fifth, a new registry is to be created called the OAuth Status Types registry. The new registry will be located in the OAuth Parameters registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/oauth-parameters/

The registry will be managed via Specification Required as defined by RFC8126. The registry will contain a note indicating that registrations require a two-week review period on the oauth-ext-review@ietf.org mailing list and that a registration template is available in [ RFC-to-be; Section 14.5.1 ]. There is are five, initial registrations in the new registry as follows:

Status Type Name: VALID
Status Type Description: The status of the Referenced Token is valid, correct or legal.
Status Type value: 0x00
Change Controller: IETF
Specification Document(s): [ RFC-to-be; Section 7 ]

Status Type Name: INVALID
Status Type Description: The status of the Referenced Token is revoked, annulled, taken back, recalled or cancelled.
Status Type value: 0x01
Change Controller: IETF
Specification Document(s): [ RFC-to-be; Section 7 ]

Status Type Name: SUSPENDED
Status Type Description: The status of the Referenced Token is temporarily invalid, hanging or debarred from privilege. This state is usually temporary.
Status Type value: 0x02
Change Controller: IETF
Specification Document(s): [ RFC-to-be; Section 7 ]

Status Type Name: APPLICATION_SPECIFIC
Status Type Description: The status of the Referenced Token is application specific.
Status Type value: 0x03
Change Controller: IETF
Specification Document(s): [ RFC-to-be; Section 7 ]

Status Type Name: APPLICATION_SPECIFIC
Status Type Description: The status of the Referenced Token is application specific.
Status Type value: 0x0B-0xOF
Change Controller: IETF
Specification Document(s): [ RFC-to-be; Section 7 ]

Sixth, in the OAuth Authorization Server Metadata registry located in the OAuth Parameters registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/oauth-parameters/

a single new registration will be made as follows:

Metadata Name: status_list_aggregation_endpoint
Metadata Description: URL of the Authorization Server aggregating OAuth Token Status List URLs for token status management.
Change Controller: IESG
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 9 ]

As this also requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

Seventh, in the application namespace of the Media Types registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/

two new registrations will be made as follows:

Name: statuslist+jwt
Template: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: statuslist+cwt
Template: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Eighth, in the CoAP Content-Formats registry in the Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Parameters registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/core-parameters/

a single new registration will be made as follows:

Content Type: application/statuslist+cwt
Content Coding: -
ID: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this also requests a registration in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

IANA Comment -> Terminology nit; could "sub-registry" in section 14.8 be updated to "registry" and "Registry" to "registry group"?

Ninth, in the SMI Security for PKIX Extended Key Purpose registry in the Structure of Management Information (SMI) Numbers (MIB Module Registrations) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/

a single, new registration will be made as follows:

Decimal: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: id-kp-oauthStatusSigning
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this also requests a registration in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

We understand that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

NOTE: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

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

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2025-11-11):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: debcooley1@gmail.com, draft-ietf-oauth-status-list@ietf.org, oauth-chairs@ietf.org, oauth@ietf.org, rifaat.s.ietf@gmail.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Token Status List (TSL)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Web Authorization Protocol WG
(oauth) to consider the following document: - 'Token Status List (TSL)'
  as Proposed Standard

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 2025-11-11. 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 specification defines a mechanism called Token Status List
  (abbreviated TSL), data structures and processing rules for
  representing the status of tokens secured by JSON Object Signing and
  Encryption (JOSE) or CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE), such
  as JWT, SD-JWT VC, CBOR Web Token and ISO mdoc.  It also defines an
  extension point and a registry for future status mechanisms.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-status-list/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

## 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?

  Yes, there was a strong support for this document from the WG.


2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

  Steffen Schwalm raised some concers realted to x509; Hannes and I met with Steffan
  to discuss his concerns, and we made it clear that x509 is out of scope for this WG.
  Steffen rescinded his opjection after that meeting.

  Denis raised a long list of issues, and the authors address some of them. Denis
  could not convince the WG to adopt the rest of his recommendation.

  Benjamin Kaduk raised some concerns about the Extended Key Usage OID, which the
  authors address in the latest version of the document.


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.)

  No such threats.


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)?


OWF sd-jwt-js
https://github.com/openwallet-foundation/sd-jwt-js

Adorsys status-list-server
https://github.com/adorsys/status-list-server

Bundesdruckerei issuer
https://github.com/Bundesdruckerei-GmbH/pid-issuer/tree/main/status-list-service-0.1.11

eudi-wallet-it-python
https://github.com/italia/eudi-wallet-it-python/tree/main/pyeudiw/status_list

Janssen Auth Server
https://docs.jans.io/head/janssen-server/auth-server/endpoints/session-status-list/

Cedarling PDP
https://github.com/JanssenProject/jans/pull/11520



## 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.

  The document defines JOSE and COSE representation. Many COSE WG participants
  are also OAuth WG participants and reviewed the COSE part of the document.


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.

  No applicable.


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]?

  No applicable.


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 was a review of the CBOR CDDL part:
  https://github.com/oauth-wg/draft-ietf-oauth-status-list/pull/270



## 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?

  Yes, the document is clearly needed, as this is on of the document EUDI Wallet
  referencing and waiting for this to be published asap.

  I raised a number of issues during my shepherd review of v10 of this document,
  which were addressed in v11.


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?

    Security area review by the SecDir is always welcomed.


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 requested RFC type is Standards Track, as this document defines a mechanism,
    data structures and processing rules for representing the status of tokens
    secured by JOSE or COSE, such as JWT, SD-JWT VC, CBOR Web Token and ISO mdoc.


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.

    Christian
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/gNTlymdl7WedpzeVV_OK1NNylvM/
   
    Tobias
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/Puls0xr5WZY2bFu-Qnn55FHIRFc/

    Paul
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/GYZAZMZiw34d5ubV6ssqkI7XS1g/


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.

    Yes.


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.)

    I raised few nits during my review of v10 which were addressed in v11.


15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

    RFC6749 and RFC8414 should be a normative references, since section 9.1 has
    a normative text related to an OAuth Authorization Server and the usage of
    status_list_aggregation_endpoint for the metadata defined in RFC8414.


16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

    No such references.


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.

    No such references.


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?

    No such references.


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.

    No chage of status of any existing RFCs.


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]).
   
    The IANA Considerations section looks good to me for regitration with
    existing registries.


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.

    The following sections introduce new registries, and they look good to me:
    14.2.  JWT Status Mechanisms Registry
    14.4.  CWT Status Mechanisms Registry
    14.5.  OAuth Status Types Registry


[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/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

## 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?

  Yes, there was a strong support for this document from the WG.


2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

  Steffen Schwalm raised some concers realted to x509; Hannes and I met with Steffan
  to discuss his concerns, and we made it clear that x509 is out of scope for this WG.
  Steffen rescinded his opjection after that meeting.

  Denis raised a long list of issues, and the authors address some of them. Denis
  could not convince the WG to adopt the rest of his recommendation.

  Benjamin Kaduk raised some concerns about the Extended Key Usage OID, which the
  authors address in the latest version of the document.


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.)

  No such threats.


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)?


OWF sd-jwt-js
https://github.com/openwallet-foundation/sd-jwt-js

Adorsys status-list-server
https://github.com/adorsys/status-list-server

Bundesdruckerei issuer
https://github.com/Bundesdruckerei-GmbH/pid-issuer/tree/main/status-list-service-0.1.11

eudi-wallet-it-python
https://github.com/italia/eudi-wallet-it-python/tree/main/pyeudiw/status_list

Janssen Auth Server
https://docs.jans.io/head/janssen-server/auth-server/endpoints/session-status-list/

Cedarling PDP
https://github.com/JanssenProject/jans/pull/11520



## 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.

  The document defines JOSE and COSE representation. Many COSE WG participants
  are also OAuth WG participants and reviewed the COSE part of the document.


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.

  No applicable.


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]?

  No applicable.


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 was a review of the CBOR CDDL part:
  https://github.com/oauth-wg/draft-ietf-oauth-status-list/pull/270



## 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?

  Yes, the document is clearly needed, as this is on of the document EUDI Wallet
  referencing and waiting for this to be published asap.

  I raised a number of issues during my shepherd review of v10 of this document,
  which were addressed in v11.


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?

    Security area review by the SecDir is always welcomed.


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 requested RFC type is Standards Track, as this document defines a mechanism,
    data structures and processing rules for representing the status of tokens
    secured by JOSE or COSE, such as JWT, SD-JWT VC, CBOR Web Token and ISO mdoc.


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.

    Christian
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/gNTlymdl7WedpzeVV_OK1NNylvM/
   
    Tobias
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/Puls0xr5WZY2bFu-Qnn55FHIRFc/

    Paul
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/GYZAZMZiw34d5ubV6ssqkI7XS1g/


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.

    Yes.


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.)

    I raised few nits during my review of v10 which were addressed in v11.


15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

    RFC6749 and RFC8414 should be a normative references, since section 9.1 has
    a normative text related to an OAuth Authorization Server and the usage of
    status_list_aggregation_endpoint for the metadata defined in RFC8414.


16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

    No such references.


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.

    No such references.


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?

    No such references.


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.

    No chage of status of any existing RFCs.


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]).
   
    The IANA Considerations section looks good to me for regitration with
    existing registries.


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.

    The following sections introduce new registries, and they look good to me:
    14.2.  JWT Status Mechanisms Registry
    14.4.  CWT Status Mechanisms Registry
    14.5.  OAuth Status Types Registry


[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/