Gotcha, thanks. I’d prefer without it, I don’t think the meaning is any more
“special” than another container field would be. I like this kind of
encapsulation, though.
And to be honest, I wish we’d done that structure with dynamic registration as
well. A software statement runs into similar issues but we got lucky that there
weren’t the same kind of conflicts that we see here.
— Justin
> On Mar 4, 2020, at 11:49 AM, Torsten Lodderstedt <tors...@lodderstedt.net>
> wrote:
>
> no particular reason, just indicating special meaning. I can live without it.
>
>> Am 04.03.2020 um 17:29 schrieb Justin Richer <jric...@mit.edu>:
>>
>> 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
