Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-oauth-status-list

# 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 Steffen rescinded his opjection after that meeting.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/ 

Back