Sorry, i meant - is top level jti required as well? S pozdravem, *Filip Skokan*
On Wed, 4 Mar 2020 at 19:15, Filip Skokan <[email protected]> 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 <[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
