On 24/04/14 23:41, Mike Jones 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.
Here is some info about open source projects:
Apache Oltu has a good support for working with JWT, believe Spring
Security has it (I haven't tried) and JBoss KeyCloak team works with
JWT, work for supporting JWT Bearer is in progress in Apache CXF (a
month or so away).
There will be a pretty good coverage for it...
Sergey
-- 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
