Hi Brian
Thanks, 'cid' is a proper compact name :-), I've made our code
configurable - to support reporting a client_id property either as a
'client_id' or 'cid' claim.
Cheers, Sergey
On 12/08/16 23:30, Brian Campbell wrote:
Yeah, the client typically isn't the/an audience of an access token. The
AT is opaque to the client and the client never processes or validates
it. So aud would have the resource(s) and something else could carry the
client id.
FWIW, token exchange is looking to define and register "cid" as a JWT
claim for the client identifier:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-05#section-4.3
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 4:13 AM, Sergey Beryozkin <sberyoz...@gmail.com
<mailto:sberyoz...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi,
After updating my earlier code (where 'client_id' was set as the
standard JWT access token 'aud' property) to use 'aud' to represent
the resource audiences I'm now thinking how to represent a
'client_id' in this token.
For now if I'm using a 'client_id' claim, to be consistent with a
standard token introspection response.
The other thing is how to represent a name of the user who
authorized the code grant which was exchanged for this token.
Again I'm using a "username" claim, to be consistent with a standard
token introspection response.
Also thinking, what value if any a 'sub' claim in such a token
should have. I'm setting it to a unique user identifier (similarly
to IdToken).
Any comments are welcome
Sergey
On 11/08/16 23:30, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
Hi John
On 11/08/16 23:24, John Bradley wrote:
I think most people put the a resource URI in the aud.
Connect uses the client ID as that is bit more stable than
trying to
use a redirect URI when there could be multiple ones.
Given that a resource server doesn’t typically have a
client_id the
resource uri make a reasonable value.
You could put it in resource if you like, but that is
probably not
what others are doing.
I was suspecting I might be on my own here yes :-)
It may be time for a interoperable JWT access token profile
of some sort.
+1
We keep getting close with some of the PoP stuff but only
specify parts.
Thanks, Sergey
John B.
On Aug 11, 2016, at 6:16 PM, Sergey Beryozkin
<sberyoz...@gmail.com <mailto:sberyoz...@gmail.com>>
wrote:
Hi All
Awhile back I was asking why would self-contained JWS
JWT access
tokens would be used (as opposed to JWE JWTs), my
concern was that
anyone with a JWT library can read this token's content
- but as I
was explained that should not be a problem if such a JWS
JWT token
contains non-sensitive information. Besides, in some
cases, it gives
RS an option to validate this JWS JWT locally, without
having to make
a remote validation call.
So I've started experimenting and the immediate question
I have is
this one: which claim should one use to represent a
resource server
audience to get the most inter-operable RS level
validation logic ?
For example, a given RS may talk to different 3rd party
authorization
servers, say AS1 (vendor1) and AS2 (vendor2), and either
AS1 or AS2
JWS JWT tokens that this RS validates locally should
ideally use the
same claim to represent a resource audience. RS
validation logic is
written independently (without using AS1 or AS2 aware
validation
libraries).
We do expect such requirements coming in our
deployments. AS1 &
independent validation logic is already in use. Just a
matter of time
before AS2 is introduced.
So JWT has a standard 'aud' claim - but I believe this
should be a
'clientId' of the client a token is issued to, similarly
to the way
the 'aud' is treated in IdToken.
So I've prototyped the code where JWT has these claims:
"aud" = clientId
"resource" = 'http://myResourceServer'
where 'resource' is borrowed from OAuth2 Resource
Indicators draft
and represent a specific RS target address, the resource
server
audience.
Am I on the right path ? How would others do it when
facing a task of
including a resource audience in a self-contained JWS
JWT access token ?
Many thanks, Sergey
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
