Why the leading underscore in the name? Why not just “token_data”?
— Justin
> On Mar 4, 2020, at 11:19 AM, Torsten Lodderstedt <tors...@lodderstedt.net>
> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> based on the recent feedback, Vladimir and I propose the following changes to
> draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-introspection-response:
>
> - the token data are encapsulated in a container element “_token_data”
> - beyond this, the top-level container only contains meta data pertinent to
> the JWT representing the signed (encrypted) introspection response
> - we need to add text to the spec to point out that replay detection must be
> based on the jti in the “_token_data” container not the top level claim
>
> That’s example of how it would look like:
>
> {
> "iss":"https://as.example-bank.com";,
> "aud":"6a256bca-1e0b-4b0c-84fe-c9f78e0cb4a3",
> "iat":1532452100,
> "_token_data":{
> "active":true,
> "iss":"https://as.example-bank.com";,
> "aud":"6a256bca-1e0b-4b0c-84fe-c9f78e0cb4a3",
> "jti":"53304e8a-a81e-4bc7-95e3-3b298d283512",
> "iat":1532452084,
> "exp":1532453100,
> "client_id":"3630BF72-E979-477A-A8FF-8A338F07C852",
> "cnf":{
> "x5t#S256":"YzEcNvUV3QXA5Bi9IB66b8psyqZBQgW4500ZGvNRdis"
> },
> "sub":"123456789087632345678"
> }
> }
>
> The response for inactive tokens would look like this:
>
> {
> "iss":"https://as.example-bank.com";,
> "aud":"6a256bca-1e0b-4b0c-84fe-c9f78e0cb4a3",
> "iat":1532452100,
> "_token_data":{
> "active":false
> }
> }
>
> What do you think?
>
> best regards,
> Torsten.
>
>> On 4. Mar 2020, at 16:37, Justin Richer <jric...@mit.edu> wrote:
>>
>> +1, this encapsulation is much cleaner.
>>
>>> On Mar 2, 2020, at 2:25 AM, 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
