Salesforce Implementation: https://help.salesforce.com/HTViewHelpDoc?id=remoteaccess_oauth_jwt_flow.htm&language=en_US
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Mike Jones <michael.jo...@microsoft.com>wrote: > I am aware of these implementations: > Microsoft Azure Active Directory: > http://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/services/active-directory/ > Google Service Account: > https://developers.google.com/accounts/docs/OAuth2ServiceAccount > > I believe that Ping Identity and Salesforce also have implementations, but > I'll let Brian and Chuck authoritatively speak to those. > > -- Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig > Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 1:40 AM > To: oauth@ietf.org > Subject: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer Shepherd Write-up > > Hi all, > > I am working on the shepherd writeup for the JWT bearer document. The > shepherd write-ups for the assertion draft and the SAML bearer document > have been completed a while ago already, see > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg12410.html > > A few requests: > > - To the document authors: Please confirm that any and all appropriate IPR > disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP > 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. > > - To all: Are you aware of implementations of this specification? If so, I > would like to reference them in my write-up. > > - To all: Please also go through the text to make sure that I correctly > reflect the history and the status of this document. > > Here is the most recent version of the write-up: > > https://raw.githubusercontent.com/hannestschofenig/tschofenig-ids/master/shepherd-writeups/Writeup_OAuth_JWT-Assertion-Profile.txt > > > (The copy-and-paste of the full version is below.) > > Ciao > Hannes > > PS: Note that I have send a mail about a pending issue to the list. In > response to my question I will update the write-up accordingly. > > ---- > > Writeup for "JSON Web Token (JWT) Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client > Authentication and Authorization Grants" <draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer-08> > > (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet > Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper > type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? > > The RFC type is 'Standards Track' and the type is indicated in the title > page. This document defines an instantiation for the OAuth assertion > framework using JSON Web Tokens. > > (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement > Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent > examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. > The approval announcement contains the following sections: > > Technical Summary: > > 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. > > Working Group Summary: > > Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was > there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the > consensus was particularly rough? > > This document belongs to the OAuth assertion document bundle consisting of > the abstract OAuth assertion framework, and the SAML assertion profile. Due > to the use of the JSON-based encoding of the assertion it also relies on > the work in the JOSE working group (such as JWE/JWS) indirectly through the > use of the JWT. This document has intentionally been kept in sync with the > SAML-based version. > > Document Quality: > > This document has gone through many iterations and has received > substantial feedback. > > [[Add implementation list here.]] > > Personnel: > > The document shepherd is Hannes Tschofenig and the responsible area > director is Kathleen Moriarty. > > (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the > Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for > publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. > > The draft authors believe that this document is ready for publication. > The document has had received review comments from working group members, > and from the OAuth working group chairs. These review comments have been > taken into account. > > (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or > breadth of the reviews that have been performed? > > This document has gotten feedback from the working group and given the > focused use cases it has received adequate review. > > (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from > broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, > DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took > place. > > Since the OAuth working group develops security protocols any feedback > from the security community is always appreciated. > > (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd > has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG > should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with > certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a > need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has > indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those > concerns here. > > The shepherd has no concerns with this document. > > (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures > required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have > already been filed. If not, explain why? > > [[Confirmation from the authors required.]] > > (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, > summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. > > No IPR disclosures have been filed on this document. However, two IPRs > have been filed for the JWT specification this document relies on, see > http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=document_search&id=draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token > > > (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent > the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or > does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? > > The working group has consensus to publish this document. > > (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme > discontent? If so, please summarise 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 appeal or extreme discontent has been raised. > > (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this > document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts > Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be > thorough. > > The shepherd has checked the nits. > > (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, > such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. > > There is no such review necessary. > > (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either > normative or informative? > > Yes. > > (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for > advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative > references exist, what is the plan for their completion? > > Yes. > > (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? > If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the > Last Call procedure. > > RFC 6755 defines the urn:ietf:params:oauth URN and is an Informational > RFC. A downref is required. > > However, this document depends on the completion of the abstract OAuth > assertion framework and on the JWT specification. > There are the following dependencies: > > (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing > RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the > abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in > the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the > document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is > discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG > considers it unnecessary. > > The publication of this document does not change the status of other RFCs. > > (17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes are > associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. > Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. > Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification > of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for > future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new > registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). > > The document registers two sub-namespaces to the urn:ietf:params:oauth URN > established with RFC 6755. > > (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future > allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in > selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. > > The document only adds entries to existing registries and does not define > any new registries. > > (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document > Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, > such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. > > There are only snippets of message exchanges and JWT assertion structures, > which are based on JSON, used in the examples. There is no pseudo code > contained in the document that requires validation. > > > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
