Hi Taka, I like the idea. I suppose there are tonnes of use cases where some data needs to be embedded into a JWT claims set, which could benefit from having its own container and content type, instead of doing what tried at first. I suppose this could merit a spec of its own (?). For the JWT introspection response I find this outside the spec scope. In a conversion with Torsten we settled on the "token_introspection" name for the container, to make it consistent with the content type (application/token-introspection+jwt) and the JWT "typ" header (token-introspection+jwt).
The JWT claim will also need to be registered with https://www.iana.org/assignments/jwt/jwt.xhtml , so the name also better be self-evident and avoid potential conflicts with future specs. Vladimir On 07/03/2020 03:33, Takahiko Kawasaki wrote: > Regarding the name of the JSON property in the payload of the > introspection response JWT. > > If we choose a more generic name (e.g. "content") than "token_data", > the approach discussed here can be used as a generic way to wrap a > JSON response in JWT. If we are ambitious, we can even add "content_type". > > Example 1: > { > "iss": "...", > "content_type": "application/json", > "content": { > "key0": "value0", > "key1": "value1" > } > } > > Example 2: > { > "iss": "...", > "content_type": "application/x-www-form-urlencoded", > "content": "key0=value0&key1=value1" > } > > Taka > > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 3:28 AM Torsten Lodderstedt > <tors...@lodderstedt.net <mailto:tors...@lodderstedt.net>> wrote: > > > >> Am 04.03.2020 um 19:18 schrieb Filip Skokan <panva...@gmail.com >> <mailto: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 >> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:jric...@mit.edu>> wrote: >> > >> > +1, this encapsulation is much cleaner. >> > >> >> On Mar 2, 2020, at 2:25 AM, Filip Skokan >> <panva...@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> OAuth mailing list >> >> OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > OAuth mailing list >> > OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >> -- Vladimir Dzhuvinov
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
