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 <[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 > >
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
