--- 1/draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-06.txt 2013-12-09 14:55:03.289867720 -0800 +++ 2/draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-07.txt 2013-12-09 14:55:03.317868275 -0800 @@ -1,86 +1,86 @@ OAuth Working Group M. Jones Internet-Draft Microsoft Intended status: Standards Track B. Campbell -Expires: January 15, 2014 Ping Identity +Expires: June 12, 2014 Ping Identity C. Mortimore Salesforce - July 14, 2013 + December 9, 2013 JSON Web Token (JWT) Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants - draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-06 + draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-07 Abstract This specification defines the use of a JSON Web Token (JWT) Bearer Token as a means for requesting an OAuth 2.0 access token as well as for use as a means of client authentication. -Status of this Memo +Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - This Internet-Draft will expire on January 15, 2014. + This Internet-Draft will expire on June 12, 2014. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents - 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 1.1. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 + 1.1. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. HTTP Parameter Bindings for Transporting Assertions . . . . . 4 - 2.1. Using JWTs as Authorization Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2.2. Using JWTs for Client Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 3. JWT Format and Processing Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 3.1. Authorization Grant Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 3.2. Client Authentication Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 2.1. Using JWTs as Authorization Grants . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 2.2. Using JWTs for Client Authentication . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 3. JWT Format and Processing Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 3.1. Authorization Grant Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 3.2. Client Authentication Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Authorization Grant Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Interoperability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 7.1. Sub-Namespace Registration of - urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:jwt-bearer . . . . . . . 10 - 7.2. Sub-Namespace Registration of - urn:ietf:params:oauth:client-assertion-type:jwt-bearer . . 10 - 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 7.1. Sub-Namespace Registration of urn:ietf:params:oauth + :grant-type:jwt-bearer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 7.2. Sub-Namespace Registration of urn:ietf:params:oauth + :client-assertion-type:jwt-bearer . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Appendix B. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 1. Introduction JSON Web Token (JWT) [JWT] is a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) [RFC4627] based security token encoding that enables identity and security information to be shared across security domains. A security token is generally issued by an identity provider and consumed by a relying party that relies on its content to identify the token's subject for security related purposes. @@ -173,24 +173,24 @@ The value of the "grant_type" parameter MUST be "urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:jwt-bearer". The value of the "assertion" parameter MUST contain a single JWT. The "scope" parameter may be used, as defined in the Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions] specification, to indicate the requested scope. - Authentication of the client is optional, as described in Section - 3.2.1 of OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749] and consequently, the "client_id" is - only needed when a form of client authentication that relies on the - parameter is used. + Authentication of the client is optional, as described in + Section 3.2.1 of OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749] and consequently, the + "client_id" is only needed when a form of client authentication that + relies on the parameter is used. The following non-normative example demonstrates an Access Token Request with a JWT as an authorization grant (with extra line breaks for display purposes only): POST /token.oauth2 HTTP/1.1 Host: as.example.com Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded grant_type=urn%3Aietf%3Aparams%3Aoauth%3Agrant-type%3Ajwt-bearer @@ -228,47 +228,48 @@ 3. JWT Format and Processing Requirements In order to issue an access token response as described in OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749] or to rely on a JWT for client authentication, the authorization server MUST validate the JWT according to the criteria below. Application of additional restrictions and policy are at the discretion of the authorization server. 1. The JWT MUST contain an "iss" (issuer) claim that contains a - unique identifier for the entity that issued the JWT. Issuer - values SHOULD be compared using the Simple String Comparison - method defined in Section 6.2.1 of RFC 3986 [RFC3986], unless - otherwise specified by the application. + unique identifier for the entity that issued the JWT. In the + absence of an application profile specifying otherwise, + compliant applications MUST compare Issuer values using the + Simple String Comparison method defined in Section 6.2.1 of RFC + 3986 [RFC3986]. 2. The JWT MUST contain a "sub" (subject) claim identifying the - subject of the transaction. The subject MAY identify the - resource owner for whom the access token is being requested. + principal that is the subject of the JWT. Two cases need to be + differentiated: - A. When using a JWT as an authorization grant, the subject - SHOULD identify an authorized accessor for whom the access - token is being requested (typically the resource owner, or - an authorized delegate). + A. For the authorization grant, the subject SHOULD identify an + authorized accessor for whom the access token is being + requested (typically the resource owner, or an authorized + delegate). B. For client authentication, the subject MUST be the "client_id" of the OAuth client. 3. The JWT MUST contain an "aud" (audience) claim containing a value that identifies the authorization server as an intended audience. The token endpoint URL of the authorization server MAY be used as a value for an "aud" element to identify the authorization server as an intended audience of the JWT. JWTs that do not identify the authorization server as an intended - audience MUST be rejected. Audience values SHOULD be compared - using the Simple String Comparison method defined in Section - 6.2.1 of RFC 3986 [RFC3986], unless otherwise specified by the - application. + audience MUST be rejected. In the absence of an application + profile specifying otherwise, compliant applications MUST + compare the audience values using the Simple String Comparison + method defined in Section 6.2.1 of RFC 3986 [RFC3986]. 4. The JWT MUST contain an "exp" (expiration) claim that limits the time window during which the JWT can be used. The authorization server MUST verify that the expiration time has not passed, subject to allowable clock skew between systems, and reject expired JWTs. The authorization server MAY reject JWTs with an "exp" claim value that is unreasonably far in the future. 5. The JWT MAY contain an "nbf" (not before) claim that identifies the time before which the token MUST NOT be accepted for @@ -318,41 +319,40 @@ Content-Type: application/json Cache-Control: no-store { "error":"invalid_grant", "error_description":"Audience validation failed" } 3.2. Client Authentication Processing - If the client JWT is not valid, or its subject confirmation - requirements cannot be met, the authorization server MUST construct - an error response as defined in OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749]. The value of - the "error" parameter MUST be the "invalid_client" error code. The - authorization server MAY include additional information regarding the - reasons the JWT was considered invalid using the "error_description" - or "error_uri" parameters. + If the client JWT is not valid, the authorization server MUST + construct an error response as defined in OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749]. The + value of the "error" parameter MUST be the "invalid_client" error + code. The authorization server MAY include additional information + regarding the reasons the JWT was considered invalid using the + "error_description" or "error_uri" parameters. 4. Authorization Grant Example Though non-normative, the following examples illustrate what a conforming JWT and access token request would look like. The example shows a JWT issued and signed by the system entity identified as "https://jwt-idp.example.com". The subject of the JWT is identified by email address as "mike@example.com". The intended audience of the JWT is "https://jwt-rp.example.net", which is an identifier with which the authorization server identifies itself. The JWT is sent as part of an access token request to the - authorization server's token endpoint at - "https://authz.example.net/token.oauth2". + authorization server's token endpoint at "https://authz.example.net/ + token.oauth2". Below is an example JSON object that could be encoded to produce the JWT Claims Object for a JWT: {"iss":"https://jwt-idp.example.com", "sub":"mailto:mike@example.com", "aud":"https://jwt-rp.example.net", "nbf":1300815780, "exp":1300819380, "http://claims.example.com/member":true} @@ -376,145 +376,174 @@ &assertion=eyJhbGciOiJFUzI1NiJ9. eyJpc3Mi[...omitted for brevity...]. J9l-ZhwP[...omitted for brevity...] 5. Interoperability Considerations Agreement between system entities regarding identifiers, keys, and endpoints is required in order to achieve interoperable deployments of this profile. Specific items that require agreement are as follows: values for the issuer and audience identifiers, the location - of the token endpoint, and the key used to apply and verify the - digital signature or keyed message digest over the JWT. The exchange - of such information is explicitly out of scope for this - specification. In some cases, additional profiles may be created - that constrain or prescribe these values or specify how they are to - be exchanged. Examples of such profiles include the OAuth 2.0 - Dynamic Client Registration Protocol [I-D.ietf-oauth-dyn-reg], OpenID - Connect Dynamic Client Registration 1.0 [OpenID.Registration], and - OpenID Connect Discovery 1.0 [OpenID.Discovery]. + of the token endpoint, the key used to apply and verify the digital + signature or keyed message digest over the JWT, one-time use + restrictions on JWT, maximum JWT lifetime allowed, and the specific + subject and claim requirements of the JWT. The exchange of such + information is explicitly out of scope for this specification. In + some cases, additional profiles may be created that constrain or + prescribe these values or specify how they are to be exchanged. + Examples of such profiles include the OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client + Registration Protocol [I-D.ietf-oauth-dyn-reg], OpenID Connect + Dynamic Client Registration 1.0 [OpenID.Registration], and OpenID + Connect Discovery 1.0 [OpenID.Discovery]. 6. Security Considerations - No additional security considerations apply beyond those described - within The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework [RFC6749], the Assertion - Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization - Grants [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions], and the JSON Web Token (JWT) - [JWT] specifications. + The security considerations described within the Assertion Framework + for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants + [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions], The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework + [RFC6749], and the JSON Web Token (JWT) [JWT] specifications are all + applicable to this document. + + The specification does not mandate replay protection for the JWT + usage for either the authorization grant or for client + authentication. It is an optional feature, which implementations may + employ at their own discretion. 7. IANA Considerations -7.1. Sub-Namespace Registration of - urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:jwt-bearer +7.1. Sub-Namespace Registration of urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type + :jwt-bearer This specification registers the value "grant-type:jwt-bearer" in the IANA urn:ietf:params:oauth registry established in An IETF URN Sub- Namespace for OAuth [RFC6755]. o URN: urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:jwt-bearer o Common Name: JWT Bearer Token Grant Type Profile for OAuth 2.0 o Change controller: IETF o Specification Document: [[this document]] -7.2. Sub-Namespace Registration of - urn:ietf:params:oauth:client-assertion-type:jwt-bearer +7.2. Sub-Namespace Registration of urn:ietf:params:oauth:client- + assertion-type:jwt-bearer - This specification registers the value - "client-assertion-type:jwt-bearer" in the IANA urn:ietf:params:oauth - registry established in An IETF URN Sub-Namespace for OAuth - [RFC6755]. + This specification registers the value "client-assertion-type:jwt- + bearer" in the IANA urn:ietf:params:oauth registry established in An + IETF URN Sub-Namespace for OAuth [RFC6755]. o URN: urn:ietf:params:oauth:client-assertion-type:jwt-bearer o Common Name: JWT Bearer Token Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication o Change controller: IETF o Specification Document: [[this document]] 8. References 8.1. Normative References [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions] Campbell, B., Mortimore, C., Jones, M., and Y. Goland, "Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants", draft-ietf-oauth-assertions - (work in progress), July 2013. + (work in progress), December 2013. [JWT] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token (JWT)", draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token (work in - progress), July 2013. + progress), November 2013. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform - Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, - RFC 3986, January 2005. + Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC + 3986, January 2005. [RFC4627] Crockford, D., "The application/json Media Type for JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)", RFC 4627, July 2006. - [RFC6749] Hardt, D., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework", - RFC 6749, October 2012. + [RFC6749] Hardt, D., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework", RFC + 6749, October 2012. [RFC6755] Campbell, B. and H. Tschofenig, "An IETF URN Sub-Namespace for OAuth", RFC 6755, October 2012. 8.2. Informative References [I-D.ietf-oauth-dyn-reg] Richer, J., Bradley, J., Jones, M., and M. Machulak, - "OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration Protocol", - draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-13 (work in progress), July 2013. + "OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration Protocol", draft- + ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-13 (work in progress), July 2013. [I-D.ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer] Campbell, B., Mortimore, C., and M. Jones, "SAML 2.0 Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants", draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer (work - in progress), July 2013. + in progress), December 2013. [OpenID.Discovery] Sakimura, N., Bradley, J., Jones, M., and E. Jay, "OpenID - Connect Discovery 1.0", July 2013. + Connect Discovery 1.0", October 2013. [OpenID.Registration] Sakimura, N., Bradley, J., and M. Jones, "OpenID Connect - Dynamic Client Registration 1.0", July 2013. + Dynamic Client Registration 1.0", October 2013. Appendix A. Acknowledgements This profile was derived from SAML 2.0 Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants [I-D.ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer] by Brian Campbell and Chuck Mortimore. Appendix B. Document History [[ to be removed by the RFC editor before publication as an RFC ]] + + draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-07 + + o Clean up language around subject per http://www.ietf.org/mail- + archive/web/oauth/current/msg12250.html. + + o As suggested in http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current + /msg12251.html stated that "In the absence of an application + profile specifying otherwise, compliant applications MUST compare + the audience values using the Simple String Comparison method + defined in Section 6.2.1 of RFC 3986." + + o Added one-time use, maximum lifetime, and specific subject and + attribute requirements to Interoperability Considerations based on + http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg12252.html. + + o Remove "or its subject confirmation requirements cannot be met" + text. + + o Reword security considerations and mention that replay protection + is not mandated based on http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ + oauth/current/msg12259.html. + -06 o Stated that issuer and audience values SHOULD be compared using the Simple String Comparison method defined in Section 6.2.1 of RFC 3986 unless otherwise specified by the application. -05 o Changed title from "JSON Web Token (JWT) Bearer Token Profiles for OAuth 2.0" to "JSON Web Token (JWT) Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants" to be more explicit about - the scope of the document per - http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg11063.html. + the scope of the document per http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web + /oauth/current/msg11063.html. o Numbered the list of processing rules. o Smallish editorial cleanups to try and improve readability and comprehensibility. o Cleaner split out of the processing rules in cases where they differ for client authentication and authorization grants. o Clarified the parameters that are used/available for authorization @@ -553,22 +581,22 @@ o Tracked specification name changes: "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Protocol" to "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework" and "OAuth 2.0 Assertion Profile" to "Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0". o Merged in changes between draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer-11 and draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer-13. All changes were strictly editorial. -00 - o Created the initial IETF draft based upon - draft-jones-oauth-jwt-bearer-04 with no normative changes. + o Created the initial IETF draft based upon draft-jones-oauth-jwt- + bearer-04 with no normative changes. Authors' Addresses Michael B. Jones Microsoft Email: mbj@microsoft.com URI: http://self-issued.info/ Brian Campbell