Hi,
After updating my earlier code (where 'client_id' was set as the
standard JWT access token 'aud' property) to use 'aud' to represent the
resource audiences I'm now thinking how to represent a 'client_id' in
this token.
For now if I'm using a 'client_id' claim, to be consistent with a
standard token introspection response.
The other thing is how to represent a name of the user who authorized
the code grant which was exchanged for this token.
Again I'm using a "username" claim, to be consistent with a standard
token introspection response.
Also thinking, what value if any a 'sub' claim in such a token should
have. I'm setting it to a unique user identifier (similarly to IdToken).
Any comments are welcome
Sergey
On 11/08/16 23:30, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
Hi John
On 11/08/16 23:24, John Bradley wrote:
I think most people put the a resource URI in the aud.
Connect uses the client ID as that is bit more stable than trying to
use a redirect URI when there could be multiple ones.
Given that a resource server doesn’t typically have a client_id the
resource uri make a reasonable value.
You could put it in resource if you like, but that is probably not
what others are doing.
I was suspecting I might be on my own here yes :-)
It may be time for a interoperable JWT access token profile of some sort.
+1
We keep getting close with some of the PoP stuff but only specify parts.
Thanks, Sergey
John B.
On Aug 11, 2016, at 6:16 PM, Sergey Beryozkin <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi All
Awhile back I was asking why would self-contained JWS JWT access
tokens would be used (as opposed to JWE JWTs), my concern was that
anyone with a JWT library can read this token's content - but as I
was explained that should not be a problem if such a JWS JWT token
contains non-sensitive information. Besides, in some cases, it gives
RS an option to validate this JWS JWT locally, without having to make
a remote validation call.
So I've started experimenting and the immediate question I have is
this one: which claim should one use to represent a resource server
audience to get the most inter-operable RS level validation logic ?
For example, a given RS may talk to different 3rd party authorization
servers, say AS1 (vendor1) and AS2 (vendor2), and either AS1 or AS2
JWS JWT tokens that this RS validates locally should ideally use the
same claim to represent a resource audience. RS validation logic is
written independently (without using AS1 or AS2 aware validation
libraries).
We do expect such requirements coming in our deployments. AS1 &
independent validation logic is already in use. Just a matter of time
before AS2 is introduced.
So JWT has a standard 'aud' claim - but I believe this should be a
'clientId' of the client a token is issued to, similarly to the way
the 'aud' is treated in IdToken.
So I've prototyped the code where JWT has these claims:
"aud" = clientId
"resource" = 'http://myResourceServer'
where 'resource' is borrowed from OAuth2 Resource Indicators draft
and represent a specific RS target address, the resource server
audience.
Am I on the right path ? How would others do it when facing a task of
including a resource audience in a self-contained JWS JWT access token ?
Many thanks, Sergey
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
