> Am 04.03.2020 um 19:18 schrieb Filip Skokan <panva...@gmail.com>: > > > Sorry, i meant - is top level jti required as well?
I don’t see any use case for it, but that might be due to lack of creativity :-)
>
> S pozdravem,
> Filip Skokan
>
>
>> On Wed, 4 Mar 2020 at 19:15, Filip Skokan <panva...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Torsten, let's make sure we call out the required top level JWT claims -
>> iss, iat, aud, what else? is top level iat required as well?
>>
>> S pozdravem,
>> Filip Skokan
>>
>>
>>> On Wed, 4 Mar 2020 at 17:19, 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
>>>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
