Hi Filip, Hi Taka, iat: We might add a structure (e.g. "underlying_access_token") to be able to convey “iat" for both the underlying access token as well as the JWT-formatted introspection response to the RS. I’m not really convinced we need to add this additional complexity since, in my experience, applications use “exp” for validity checks. I consequently would argue that overloading “iat” for the AS attesting the instant when it created the JWT formatted introspection response is acceptable. No strong argument, just an explanation, why we didn't change it so far.
jti: This is getting more difficult for the “jti”. If the “jti” of the JWT-formatted introspection response is in the root level, and the “jti" of the underlying access token goes into a container, the RS developer need to dig into this container to implement replay detection with respect to the underlying access tokens. I’m concerned RS developers will just use the top level “jti" for replay detection, which does not make any sense as this “jti" is freshly assigned with every introspection response. I look forward to getting your advice. best regards, Torsten. > On 2. Mar 2020, at 08:25, Filip Skokan <panva...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Perhaps we should consider leaving the root level JWT claims as-is per JWT > and push the introspection response unmodified as if it was regular json > response to a JWT claim called "introspection". Since regular introspection > uses the same claim names as JWT this would get around all the conflicts. > > Last time i brought it up the authors didn't want to consider it because of > existing implementations. > > S pozdravem, > Filip Skokan > > > On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 at 07:52, Takahiko Kawasaki <t...@authlete.com> wrote: > Thank you, Tatsuo Kudo, for showing me that Justin Richer expressed the same > concerns in this mailing list about 6 months ago (on Sep. 4, 2019). RFC 8707 > didn't exist then, though. > > Re: [OAUTH-WG] Question regarding > draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-introspection-response-05 > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/LmMAxd35gW5Yox0j4MmU2rI_eUA/ > > A JWT puts both (a) information about itself and (b) other data in its > payload part. When the "other data" have the same claim names as are used to > express information about the JWT itself, conflicts happen. > > Also, it should be noted that Ben pointed out in other thread that the > requirement for "jti" in draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-introspection-response, which > says "jti" is a unique identifier for the access token that MUST be stable > for all introspection calls, contradicts the definition of "jti", which > should be unique for each JWT. > > Re: [OAUTH-WG] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on > draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-introspection-response-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/S4q7cF0TMZMzFO61I5M4QXCUWCM/ > > draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-introspection-response needs to be modified to solve the > conflicts. > > Taka > > On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 4:10 PM Takahiko Kawasaki <t...@authlete..com> wrote: > Hello, > > I'm wondering if the following conflicts in "JWT Response for OAuth Token > Introspection" (draft 8) have already been pointed out. > > RFC 8707 (Resource Indicators for OAuth 2.0) requires that 'aud' in an > introspection response hold the values of the 'resource' request parameters, > whereas "JWT Response for OAuth Token Introspection" says that 'aud' MUST > identify the resource server receiving the token introspection response. The > definitions conflict. > > RFC 7662 (OAuth 2.0 Token Introspection) requires that 'iat' in an > introspection response indicate when the access/refresh token was issued, > whereas "JWT Response for OAuth Token Introspection" says that 'iat' > indicates when the introspection response in JWT format was issued. The > definitions conflict. > > Best Regards, > Takahiko Kawasaki > Authlete, Inc. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
