Skip to main content
OAuth Identity and Authorization Chaining Across Domains
OAuth Identity and Authorization Chaining Across Domains
draft-ietf-oauth-identity-chaining-08
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2026-03-13
|
08 | Deb Cooley | Ballot writeup was changed |
|
2026-03-12
|
08 | Deb Cooley | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
|
2026-02-09
|
08 | Rifaat Shekh-Yusef | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few … # 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 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? No such points or decisions. 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)? KeyCloak 26.5 https://www.keycloak.org/2026/01/jwt-authorization-grant Ping Identity has implementations based on existing functionality supporting those specs. Okta https://developer.okta.com/blog/2025/09/03/cross-app-access Auth0 https://auth0.com/docs/secure/call-apis-on-users-behalf/xaa Okta Open Source https://github.com/oktadev/okta-cross-app-access-mcp Okta Standalone implementation https://xaa.dev/ Basic testing implementation https://motd.xaa.rocks/ WSO2 Identity Server has some basic building blocks https://is.docs.wso2.com/en/latest/references/grant-types/#jwt-bearer-grant https://is.docs.wso2.com/en/latest/references/grant-types/#token-exchange-grant ## 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. Yes, it is related to the work of the WIMSE WG. Many of the people active at the WIMSE WG are also active at the OAuth WG. 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. Not 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]? Not 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. JSONLint was used to validate the JSON examples. ## 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 well written and defines the OAuth interaction between different trust domains. I reviewed v06 and v07 of the document and the authors addressed the issues I raised in v07 and v08. 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? Not needed. 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? Proposed Standard. The draft defines a new mechanism that preserves identity and authorization information across trust domains that use OAuth. 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. Brian https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/kTvSouMzS8Gws4t9JLstwmxWpcs/ Pieter https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/-24Nfmg3k-s-cpC9rD2BHCu6m-k/ Arndt https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/vqPIS_j_AUiFYztC7hnBhu4LI0k/ Mike https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/TZkod7RgLJZVgV4XY7Z5CbtHges/ George https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/MHaSQwTsb5ug_rnK8A3Lgqb3IBU/ Kelley https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/2zdY2k-VZXzLiPLzVGYYTyy4E7Y/ 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.) None 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. These were fixed in v08. 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. None 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? None 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 change 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 section looks good to me. 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. Not applicable. [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/ |
|
2026-02-09
|
08 | Rifaat Shekh-Yusef | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
|
2026-02-09
|
08 | Rifaat Shekh-Yusef | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
|
2026-02-09
|
08 | (System) | Changed action holders to Deb Cooley (IESG state changed) |
|
2026-02-09
|
08 | Rifaat Shekh-Yusef | Responsible AD changed to Deb Cooley |
|
2026-02-09
|
08 | Rifaat Shekh-Yusef | Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested |
|
2026-02-09
|
08 | Rifaat Shekh-Yusef | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few … # 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 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? No such points or decisions. 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)? KeyCloak 26.5 https://www.keycloak.org/2026/01/jwt-authorization-grant Ping Identity has implementations based on existing functionality supporting those specs. Okta https://developer.okta.com/blog/2025/09/03/cross-app-access Auth0 https://auth0.com/docs/secure/call-apis-on-users-behalf/xaa Okta Open Source https://github.com/oktadev/okta-cross-app-access-mcp Okta Standalone implementation https://xaa.dev/ Basic testing implementation https://motd.xaa.rocks/ WSO2 Identity Server has some basic building blocks https://is.docs.wso2.com/en/latest/references/grant-types/#jwt-bearer-grant https://is.docs.wso2.com/en/latest/references/grant-types/#token-exchange-grant ## 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. Yes, it is related to the work of the WIMSE WG. Many of the people active at the WIMSE WG are also active at the OAuth WG. 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. Not 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]? Not 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. JSONLint was used to validate the JSON examples. ## 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 well written and defines the OAuth interaction between different trust domains. I reviewed v06 and v07 of the document and the authors addressed the issues I raised in v07 and v08. 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? Not needed. 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? Proposed Standard. The draft defines a new mechanism that preserves identity and authorization information across trust domains that use OAuth. 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. Brian https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/kTvSouMzS8Gws4t9JLstwmxWpcs/ Pieter https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/-24Nfmg3k-s-cpC9rD2BHCu6m-k/ Arndt https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/vqPIS_j_AUiFYztC7hnBhu4LI0k/ Mike https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/TZkod7RgLJZVgV4XY7Z5CbtHges/ George https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/MHaSQwTsb5ug_rnK8A3Lgqb3IBU/ Kelley https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/2zdY2k-VZXzLiPLzVGYYTyy4E7Y/ 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.) None 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. These were fixed in v08. 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. None 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? None 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 change 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 section looks good to me. 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. Not applicable. [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/ |
|
2026-02-09
|
08 | Rifaat Shekh-Yusef | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
|
2026-02-09
|
08 | Rifaat Shekh-Yusef | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from Informational |
|
2026-02-09
|
08 | Rifaat Shekh-Yusef | Intended Status changed to Informational from None |
|
2026-02-09
|
08 | Rifaat Shekh-Yusef | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few … # 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 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? No such points or decisions. 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)? KeyCloak 26.5 https://www.keycloak.org/2026/01/jwt-authorization-grant Ping Identity has implementations based on existing functionality supporting those specs. Okta https://developer.okta.com/blog/2025/09/03/cross-app-access Auth0 https://auth0.com/docs/secure/call-apis-on-users-behalf/xaa Okta Open Source https://github.com/oktadev/okta-cross-app-access-mcp Okta Standalone implementation https://xaa.dev/ Basic testing implementation https://motd.xaa.rocks/ WSO2 Identity Server has some basic building blocks https://is.docs.wso2.com/en/latest/references/grant-types/#jwt-bearer-grant https://is.docs.wso2.com/en/latest/references/grant-types/#token-exchange-grant ## 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. Yes, it is related to the work of the WIMSE WG. Many of the people active at the WIMSE WG are also active at the OAuth WG. 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. Not 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]? Not 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. JSONLint was used to validate the JSON examples. ## 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 well written and defines the OAuth interaction between different trust domains. I reviewed v06 and v07 of the document and the authors addressed the issues I raised in v07 and v08. 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? Not needed. 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? Informational. This document does not define any new OAuth functionalities, and instead describes the interaction between different trust domains using existing OAuth capabilities. 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. Brian https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/kTvSouMzS8Gws4t9JLstwmxWpcs/ Pieter https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/-24Nfmg3k-s-cpC9rD2BHCu6m-k/ Arndt https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/vqPIS_j_AUiFYztC7hnBhu4LI0k/ Mike https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/TZkod7RgLJZVgV4XY7Z5CbtHges/ George https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/MHaSQwTsb5ug_rnK8A3Lgqb3IBU/ Kelley https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/2zdY2k-VZXzLiPLzVGYYTyy4E7Y/ 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.) None 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. These were fixed in v08. 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. None 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? None 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 change 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 section looks good to me. 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. Not applicable. [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/ |
|
2026-02-09
|
08 | Arndt Schwenkschuster | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-identity-chaining-08.txt |
|
2026-02-09
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2026-02-09
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Arndt Schwenkschuster , Brian Campbell , Kelley Burgin , Michael Jenkins , Pieter Kasselman |
|
2026-02-09
|
08 | Arndt Schwenkschuster | Uploaded new revision |
|
2026-02-06
|
07 | Arndt Schwenkschuster | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-identity-chaining-07.txt |
|
2026-02-06
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2026-02-06
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Arndt Schwenkschuster , Brian Campbell , Kelley Burgin , Michael Jenkins , Pieter Kasselman , oauth-chairs@ietf.org |
|
2026-02-06
|
07 | Arndt Schwenkschuster | Uploaded new revision |
|
2026-01-27
|
06 | Rifaat Shekh-Yusef | Notification list changed to rifaat.s.ietf@gmail.com because the document shepherd was set |
|
2026-01-27
|
06 | Rifaat Shekh-Yusef | Document shepherd changed to Rifaat Shekh-Yusef |
|
2026-01-26
|
06 | Rifaat Shekh-Yusef | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
|
2025-09-12
|
06 | Arndt Schwenkschuster | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-identity-chaining-06.txt |
|
2025-09-12
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2025-09-12
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Arndt Schwenkschuster , Brian Campbell , Kelley Burgin , Michael Jenkins , Pieter Kasselman |
|
2025-09-12
|
06 | Arndt Schwenkschuster | Uploaded new revision |
|
2025-08-25
|
05 | Rifaat Shekh-Yusef | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
|
2025-07-03
|
05 | Arndt Schwenkschuster | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-identity-chaining-05.txt |
|
2025-07-03
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2025-07-03
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Arndt Schwenkschuster , Brian Campbell , Kelley Burgin , Michael Jenkins , Pieter Kasselman |
|
2025-07-03
|
05 | Arndt Schwenkschuster | Uploaded new revision |
|
2025-03-10
|
04 | Rifaat Shekh-Yusef | Added to session: IETF-122: oauth Fri-0230 |
|
2025-02-27
|
04 | Arndt Schwenkschuster | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-identity-chaining-04.txt |
|
2025-02-27
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2025-02-27
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Arndt Schwenkschuster , Brian Campbell , Kelley Burgin , Michael Jenkins , Pieter Kasselman |
|
2025-02-27
|
04 | Arndt Schwenkschuster | Uploaded new revision |
|
2024-12-21
|
03 | Arndt Schwenkschuster | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-identity-chaining-03.txt |
|
2024-12-21
|
03 | Kelley Burgin | New version approved |
|
2024-12-20
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Arndt Schwenkschuster , Brian Campbell , Kelley Burgin , Michael Jenkins , Pieter Kasselman , oauth-chairs@ietf.org |
|
2024-12-20
|
03 | Arndt Schwenkschuster | Uploaded new revision |
|
2024-10-31
|
02 | Justin Richer | Added to session: IETF-121: wimse Thu-1300 |
|
2024-07-08
|
02 | Arndt Schwenkschuster | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-identity-chaining-02.txt |
|
2024-07-08
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2024-07-08
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Arndt Schwenkschuster , Brian Campbell , Kelley Burgin , Michael Jenkins , Pieter Kasselman |
|
2024-07-08
|
02 | Arndt Schwenkschuster | Uploaded new revision |
|
2024-03-17
|
01 | Justin Richer | Added to session: IETF-119: wimse Mon-0300 |
|
2024-03-15
|
01 | Rifaat Shekh-Yusef | Added to session: IETF-119: oauth Tue-2330 |
|
2024-02-19
|
01 | Arndt Schwenkschuster | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-identity-chaining-01.txt |
|
2024-02-19
|
01 | Brian Campbell | New version approved |
|
2024-02-19
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Arndt Schwenkschuster , Brian Campbell , Kelley Burgin , Michael Jenkins , Pieter Kasselman |
|
2024-02-19
|
01 | Arndt Schwenkschuster | Uploaded new revision |
|
2023-12-01
|
00 | Rifaat Shekh-Yusef | This document now replaces draft-oauth-identity-chaining instead of None |
|
2023-12-01
|
00 | Brian Campbell | New version available: draft-ietf-oauth-identity-chaining-00.txt |
|
2023-12-01
|
00 | Rifaat Shekh-Yusef | WG -00 approved |
|
2023-12-01
|
00 | Brian Campbell | Set submitter to "Brian Campbell ", replaces to draft-oauth-identity-chaining and sent approval email to group chairs: oauth-chairs@ietf.org |
|
2023-12-01
|
00 | Brian Campbell | Uploaded new revision |