no particular reason, just indicating special meaning. I can live without it..
> Am 04.03.2020 um 17:29 schrieb Justin Richer <[email protected]>: > > Why the leading underscore in the name? Why not just “token_data”? > > — Justin > >> On Mar 4, 2020, at 11:19 AM, Torsten Lodderstedt <[email protected]> >> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> +1, this encapsulation is much cleaner. >>> >>>> On Mar 2, 2020, at 2:25 AM, Filip Skokan <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >>>> 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 >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> OAuth mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OAuth mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >> >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
