draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-08.txt		draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-09.txt
	OAuth Working Group M. Jones		OAuth Working Group M. Jones
	Internet-Draft Microsoft		Internet-Draft Microsoft
	Intended status: Standards Track B. Campbell		Intended status: Standards Track B. Campbell
	Expires: September 20, 2014 Ping Identity		Expires: October 30, 2014 Ping Identity
	C. Mortimore		C. Mortimore
	Salesforce		Salesforce
	March 19, 2014		April 28, 2014
	JSON Web Token (JWT) Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and		JSON Web Token (JWT) Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and
	Authorization Grants		Authorization Grants
	draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-08		draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-09
	Abstract		Abstract
	This specification defines the use of a JSON Web Token (JWT) Bearer		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		Token as a means for requesting an OAuth 2.0 access token as well as
	for use as a means of client authentication.		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		This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
	provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.		provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on September 20, 2014.		This Internet-Draft will expire on October 30, 2014.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect		carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
	to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must		to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of		include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
	described in the Simplified BSD License.		described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	1.1. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		1.1. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	2. HTTP Parameter Bindings for Transporting Assertions . . . . . 4		2. HTTP Parameter Bindings for Transporting Assertions . . . . . 4
	2.1. Using JWTs as Authorization Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2.1. Using JWTs as Authorization Grants . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	2.2. Using JWTs for Client Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . 5		2.2. Using JWTs for Client Authentication . . . . . . . . . . 5
	3. JWT Format and Processing Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		3. JWT Format and Processing Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	3.1. Authorization Grant Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		3.1. Authorization Grant Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	3.2. Client Authentication Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		3.2. Client Authentication Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	4. Authorization Grant Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		4. Authorization Grant Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	5. Interoperability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		5. Interoperability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	7.1. Sub-Namespace Registration of		7.1. Sub-Namespace Registration of urn:ietf:params:oauth
	urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:jwt-bearer . . . . . . . 10		:grant-type:jwt-bearer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	7.2. Sub-Namespace Registration of		7.2. Sub-Namespace Registration of urn:ietf:params:oauth
	urn:ietf:params:oauth:client-assertion-type:jwt-bearer . . 10		:client-assertion-type:jwt-bearer . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	Appendix B. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		Appendix B. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	JSON Web Token (JWT) [JWT] is a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)		JSON Web Token (JWT) [JWT] is a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)
	[RFC7159] based security token encoding that enables identity and		[RFC7159] based security token encoding that enables identity and
	security information to be shared across security domains. A		security information to be shared across security domains. A
	security token is generally issued by an identity provider and		security token is generally issued by an identity provider and
	consumed by a relying party that relies on its content to identify		consumed by a relying party that relies on its content to identify
	the token's subject for security related purposes.		the token's subject for security related purposes.
	skipping to change at page 3, line 32		skipping to change at page 3, line 12
	are defined to support a wide range of client types and user		are defined to support a wide range of client types and user
	experiences. OAuth also allows for the definition of new extension		experiences. OAuth also allows for the definition of new extension
	grant types to support additional clients or to provide a bridge		grant types to support additional clients or to provide a bridge
	between OAuth and other trust frameworks. Finally, OAuth allows the		between OAuth and other trust frameworks. Finally, OAuth allows the
	definition of additional authentication mechanisms to be used by		definition of additional authentication mechanisms to be used by
	clients when interacting with the authorization server.		clients when interacting with the authorization server.
	The Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and		The Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and
	Authorization Grants [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions] specification is an		Authorization Grants [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions] specification is an
	abstract extension to OAuth 2.0 that provides a general framework for		abstract extension to OAuth 2.0 that provides a general framework for
	the use of Assertions (a.k.a. Security Tokens) as client credentials		the use of Assertions (a.k.a. Security Tokens) as client credentials
	and/or authorization grants with OAuth 2.0. This specification		and/or authorization grants with OAuth 2.0. This specification
	profiles the Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication		profiles the Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication
	and Authorization Grants [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions] specification to		and Authorization Grants [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions] specification to
	define an extension grant type that uses a JSON Web Token (JWT)		define an extension grant type that uses a JSON Web Token (JWT)
	Bearer Token to request an OAuth 2.0 access token as well as for use		Bearer Token to request an OAuth 2.0 access token as well as for use
	as client credentials. The format and processing rules for the JWT		as client credentials. The format and processing rules for the JWT
	defined in this specification are intentionally similar, though not		defined in this specification are intentionally similar, though not
	identical, to those in the closely related SAML 2.0 Profile for OAuth		identical, to those in the closely related SAML 2.0 Profile for OAuth
	2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants		2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants
	[I-D.ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer] specification.		[I-D.ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer] specification.
	skipping to change at page 5, line 15		skipping to change at page 4, line 42
	The value of the "grant_type" parameter MUST be		The value of the "grant_type" parameter MUST be
	"urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:jwt-bearer".		"urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:jwt-bearer".
	The value of the "assertion" parameter MUST contain a single JWT.		The value of the "assertion" parameter MUST contain a single JWT.
	The "scope" parameter may be used, as defined in the Assertion		The "scope" parameter may be used, as defined in the Assertion
	Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization		Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization
	Grants [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions] specification, to indicate the		Grants [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions] specification, to indicate the
	requested scope.		requested scope.
	Authentication of the client is optional, as described in Section		Authentication of the client is optional, as described in
	3.2.1 of OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749] and consequently, the "client_id" is		Section 3.2.1 of OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749] and consequently, the
	only needed when a form of client authentication that relies on the		"client_id" is only needed when a form of client authentication that
	parameter is used.		relies on the parameter is used.
	The following non-normative example demonstrates an Access Token		The following non-normative example demonstrates an Access Token
	Request with a JWT as an authorization grant (with extra line breaks		Request with a JWT as an authorization grant (with extra line breaks
	for display purposes only):		for display purposes only):
	POST /token.oauth2 HTTP/1.1		POST /token.oauth2 HTTP/1.1
	Host: as.example.com		Host: as.example.com
	Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded		Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
	grant_type=urn%3Aietf%3Aparams%3Aoauth%3Agrant-type%3Ajwt-bearer		grant_type=urn%3Aietf%3Aparams%3Aoauth%3Agrant-type%3Ajwt-bearer
	skipping to change at page 6, line 36		skipping to change at page 6, line 12
	unique identifier for the entity that issued the JWT. In the		unique identifier for the entity that issued the JWT. In the
	absence of an application profile specifying otherwise,		absence of an application profile specifying otherwise,
	compliant applications MUST compare Issuer values using the		compliant applications MUST compare Issuer values using the
	Simple String Comparison method defined in Section 6.2.1 of RFC		Simple String Comparison method defined in Section 6.2.1 of RFC
	3986 [RFC3986].		3986 [RFC3986].
	2. The JWT MUST contain a "sub" (subject) claim identifying the		2. The JWT MUST contain a "sub" (subject) claim identifying the
	principal that is the subject of the JWT. Two cases need to be		principal that is the subject of the JWT. Two cases need to be
	differentiated:		differentiated:
	A. For the authorization grant, the subject SHOULD identify an		A. For the authorization grant, the subject typically
	authorized accessor for whom the access token is being		identifies an authorized accessor for which the access token
	requested (typically the resource owner, or an authorized		is being requested (i.e., the resource owner or an
	delegate).		authorized delegate), but in some cases, may be a
			pseudonymous identifier or other value denoting an anonymous
			user.
	B. For client authentication, the subject MUST be the		B. For client authentication, the subject MUST be the
	"client_id" of the OAuth client.		"client_id" of the OAuth client.
	3. The JWT MUST contain an "aud" (audience) claim containing a		3. The JWT MUST contain an "aud" (audience) claim containing a
	value that identifies the authorization server as an intended		value that identifies the authorization server as an intended
	audience. The token endpoint URL of the authorization server		audience. The token endpoint URL of the authorization server
	MAY be used as a value for an "aud" element to identify the		MAY be used as a value for an "aud" element to identify the
	authorization server as an intended audience of the JWT. JWTs		authorization server as an intended audience of the JWT. JWTs
	that do not identify the authorization server as an intended		that do not identify the authorization server as an intended
	skipping to change at page 8, line 39		skipping to change at page 8, line 18
	Though non-normative, the following examples illustrate what a		Though non-normative, the following examples illustrate what a
	conforming JWT and access token request would look like.		conforming JWT and access token request would look like.
	The example shows a JWT issued and signed by the system entity		The example shows a JWT issued and signed by the system entity
	identified as "https://jwt-idp.example.com". The subject of the JWT		identified as "https://jwt-idp.example.com". The subject of the JWT
	is identified by email address as "mike@example.com". The intended		is identified by email address as "mike@example.com". The intended
	audience of the JWT is "https://jwt-rp.example.net", which is an		audience of the JWT is "https://jwt-rp.example.net", which is an
	identifier with which the authorization server identifies itself.		identifier with which the authorization server identifies itself.
	The JWT is sent as part of an access token request to the		The JWT is sent as part of an access token request to the
	authorization server's token endpoint at		authorization server's token endpoint at "https://authz.example.net/
	"https://authz.example.net/token.oauth2".		token.oauth2".
	Below is an example JSON object that could be encoded to produce the		Below is an example JSON object that could be encoded to produce the
	JWT Claims Object for a JWT:		JWT Claims Object for a JWT:
	{"iss":"https://jwt-idp.example.com",		{"iss":"https://jwt-idp.example.com",
	"sub":"mailto:mike@example.com",		"sub":"mailto:mike@example.com",
	"aud":"https://jwt-rp.example.net",		"aud":"https://jwt-rp.example.net",
	"nbf":1300815780,		"nbf":1300815780,
	"exp":1300819380,		"exp":1300819380,
	"http://claims.example.com/member":true}		"http://claims.example.com/member":true}
	skipping to change at page 10, line 12		skipping to change at page 9, line 38
	[RFC6749], and the JSON Web Token (JWT) [JWT] specifications are all		[RFC6749], and the JSON Web Token (JWT) [JWT] specifications are all
	applicable to this document.		applicable to this document.
	The specification does not mandate replay protection for the JWT		The specification does not mandate replay protection for the JWT
	usage for either the authorization grant or for client		usage for either the authorization grant or for client
	authentication. It is an optional feature, which implementations may		authentication. It is an optional feature, which implementations may
	employ at their own discretion.		employ at their own discretion.
	7. IANA Considerations		7. IANA Considerations
	7.1. Sub-Namespace Registration of		7.1. Sub-Namespace Registration of urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type
	urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:jwt-bearer		:jwt-bearer
	This specification registers the value "grant-type:jwt-bearer" in the		This specification registers the value "grant-type:jwt-bearer" in the
	IANA urn:ietf:params:oauth registry established in An IETF URN Sub-		IANA urn:ietf:params:oauth registry established in An IETF URN Sub-
	Namespace for OAuth [RFC6755].		Namespace for OAuth [RFC6755].
	o URN: urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:jwt-bearer		o URN: urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:jwt-bearer
	o Common Name: JWT Bearer Token Grant Type Profile for OAuth 2.0		o Common Name: JWT Bearer Token Grant Type Profile for OAuth 2.0
	o Change controller: IETF		o Change controller: IETF
	o Specification Document: [[this document]]		o Specification Document: [[this document]]
	7.2. Sub-Namespace Registration of		7.2. Sub-Namespace Registration of urn:ietf:params:oauth:client-
	urn:ietf:params:oauth:client-assertion-type:jwt-bearer		assertion-type:jwt-bearer
	This specification registers the value		This specification registers the value "client-assertion-type:jwt-
	"client-assertion-type:jwt-bearer" in the IANA urn:ietf:params:oauth		bearer" in the IANA urn:ietf:params:oauth registry established in An
	registry established in An IETF URN Sub-Namespace for OAuth		IETF URN Sub-Namespace for OAuth [RFC6755].
	[RFC6755].
	o URN: urn:ietf:params:oauth:client-assertion-type:jwt-bearer		o URN: urn:ietf:params:oauth:client-assertion-type:jwt-bearer
	o Common Name: JWT Bearer Token Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client		o Common Name: JWT Bearer Token Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client
	Authentication		Authentication
	o Change controller: IETF		o Change controller: IETF
	o Specification Document: [[this document]]		o Specification Document: [[this document]]
	8. References		8. References
	8.1. Normative References		8.1. Normative References
	[I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions]		[I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions]
	Campbell, B., Mortimore, C., Jones, M., and Y. Goland,		Campbell, B., Mortimore, C., Jones, M., and Y. Goland,
	"Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication		"Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication
	and Authorization Grants", draft-ietf-oauth-assertions		and Authorization Grants", draft-ietf-oauth-assertions
	(work in progress), March 2014.		(work in progress), April 2014.
	[JWT] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token		[JWT] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token
	(JWT)", draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token (work in		(JWT)", draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token (work in
	progress), March 2014.		progress), March 2014.
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
	[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform		[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
	Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,		Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC
	RFC 3986, January 2005.		3986, January 2005.
	[RFC6749] Hardt, D., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework",		[RFC6749] Hardt, D., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework", RFC
	RFC 6749, October 2012.		6749, October 2012.
	[RFC6755] Campbell, B. and H. Tschofenig, "An IETF URN Sub-Namespace		[RFC6755] Campbell, B. and H. Tschofenig, "An IETF URN Sub-Namespace
	for OAuth", RFC 6755, October 2012.		for OAuth", RFC 6755, October 2012.
	[RFC7159] Bray, T., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data		[RFC7159] Bray, T., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
	Interchange Format", RFC 7159, March 2014.		Interchange Format", RFC 7159, March 2014.
	8.2. Informative References		8.2. Informative References
	[I-D.ietf-oauth-dyn-reg]		[I-D.ietf-oauth-dyn-reg]
	Richer, J., Jones, M., Bradley, J., Machulak, M., and P.		Richer, J., Jones, M., Bradley, J., Machulak, M., and P.
	Hunt, "OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration Core		Hunt, "OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration Core
	Protocol", draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-16 (work in progress),		Protocol", draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-16 (work in progress),
	February 2014.		February 2014.
	[I-D.ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer]		[I-D.ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer]
	Campbell, B., Mortimore, C., and M. Jones, "SAML 2.0		Campbell, B., Mortimore, C., and M. Jones, "SAML 2.0
	Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and		Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and
	Authorization Grants", draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer (work		Authorization Grants", draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer (work
	in progress), March 2014.		in progress), April 2014.
	[OpenID.Discovery]		[OpenID.Discovery]
	Sakimura, N., Bradley, J., Jones, M., and E. Jay, "OpenID		Sakimura, N., Bradley, J., Jones, M., and E. Jay, "OpenID
	Connect Discovery 1.0", February 2014.		Connect Discovery 1.0", February 2014.
	[OpenID.Registration]		[OpenID.Registration]
	Sakimura, N., Bradley, J., and M. Jones, "OpenID Connect		Sakimura, N., Bradley, J., and M. Jones, "OpenID Connect
	Dynamic Client Registration 1.0", February 2014.		Dynamic Client Registration 1.0", February 2014.
	Appendix A. Acknowledgements		Appendix A. Acknowledgements
	This profile was derived from SAML 2.0 Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client		This profile was derived from SAML 2.0 Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client
	Authentication and Authorization Grants [I-D.ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer]		Authentication and Authorization Grants [I-D.ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer]
	by Brian Campbell and Chuck Mortimore.		by Brian Campbell and Chuck Mortimore.
	Appendix B. Document History		Appendix B. Document History
	[[ to be removed by the RFC editor before publication as an RFC ]]		[[ to be removed by the RFC editor before publication as an RFC ]]
			draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-09
			o Clarified some text around the treatment of subject based on the
			rough rough consensus from the thread staring at http://
			www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg12630.html
	draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-08		draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-08
	o Updated references, including replacing references to RFC 4627		o Updated references, including replacing references to RFC 4627
	with RFC 7159.		with RFC 7159.
	draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-07		draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-07
	o Clean up language around subject per		o Clean up language around subject per http://www.ietf.org/mail-
	http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg12250.html.		archive/web/oauth/current/msg12250.html.
	o As suggested in		o As suggested in http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current
	http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg12251.html		/msg12251.html stated that "In the absence of an application
	stated that "In the absence of an application profile specifying		profile specifying otherwise, compliant applications MUST compare
	otherwise, compliant applications MUST compare the audience values		the audience values using the Simple String Comparison method
	using the Simple String Comparison method defined in Section 6.2.1		defined in Section 6.2.1 of RFC 3986."
	of RFC 3986."
	o Added one-time use, maximum lifetime, and specific subject and		o Added one-time use, maximum lifetime, and specific subject and
	attribute requirements to Interoperability Considerations based on		attribute requirements to Interoperability Considerations based on
	http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg12252.html.		http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg12252.html.
	o Remove "or its subject confirmation requirements cannot be met"		o Remove "or its subject confirmation requirements cannot be met"
	text.		text.
	o Reword security considerations and mention that replay protection		o Reword security considerations and mention that replay protection
	is not mandated based on		is not mandated based on http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/
	http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg12259.html.		oauth/current/msg12259.html.
	-06		-06
	o Stated that issuer and audience values SHOULD be compared using		o Stated that issuer and audience values SHOULD be compared using
	the Simple String Comparison method defined in Section 6.2.1 of		the Simple String Comparison method defined in Section 6.2.1 of
	RFC 3986 unless otherwise specified by the application.		RFC 3986 unless otherwise specified by the application.
	-05		-05
	o Changed title from "JSON Web Token (JWT) Bearer Token Profiles for		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		OAuth 2.0" to "JSON Web Token (JWT) Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client
	Authentication and Authorization Grants" to be more explicit about		Authentication and Authorization Grants" to be more explicit about
	the scope of the document per		the scope of the document per http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web
	http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg11063.html.		/oauth/current/msg11063.html.
	o Numbered the list of processing rules.		o Numbered the list of processing rules.
	o Smallish editorial cleanups to try and improve readability and		o Smallish editorial cleanups to try and improve readability and
	comprehensibility.		comprehensibility.
	o Cleaner split out of the processing rules in cases where they		o Cleaner split out of the processing rules in cases where they
	differ for client authentication and authorization grants.		differ for client authentication and authorization grants.
	o Clarified the parameters that are used/available for authorization		o Clarified the parameters that are used/available for authorization
	skipping to change at page 14, line 14		skipping to change at page 13, line 38
	o Tracked specification name changes: "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization		o Tracked specification name changes: "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization
	Protocol" to "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework" and "OAuth		Protocol" to "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework" and "OAuth
	2.0 Assertion Profile" to "Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0".		2.0 Assertion Profile" to "Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0".
	o Merged in changes between draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer-11 and		o Merged in changes between draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer-11 and
	draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer-13. All changes were strictly		draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer-13. All changes were strictly
	editorial.		editorial.
	-00		-00
	o Created the initial IETF draft based upon		o Created the initial IETF draft based upon draft-jones-oauth-jwt-
	draft-jones-oauth-jwt-bearer-04 with no normative changes.		bearer-04 with no normative changes.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Michael B. Jones		Michael B. Jones
	Microsoft		Microsoft
	Email: mbj@microsoft.com		Email: mbj@microsoft.com
	URI: http://self-issued.info/		URI: http://self-issued.info/
	Brian Campbell		Brian Campbell
	Ping Identity		Ping Identity
	Email: brian.d.campbell@gmail.com		Email: brian.d.campbell@gmail.com
	Chuck Mortimore		Chuck Mortimore
	Salesforce		Salesforce
	Email: cmortimore@salesforce.com		Email: cmortimore@salesforce.com
End of changes. 25 change blocks.
	68 lines changed or deleted		74 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/