Standards Track vs. Informational #175
Description
The draft currently has Informational as the Intended Status, which I suspect is due to accident but does seem maybe appropriate as a document that is largely just describing the use of some existing RFCs.
An Informational status could be problematic with respect to downrefs, however, for drafts like https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-identity-assertion-authz-grant/ that currently have Standards Track Intended Status and a normative reference to this.