If I understand "The intent would be to present that information in the same way you would when querying a users/<id>, encoded in claims" correctly, the "roles", "groups", and "entitlements" claims are the same types as the "roles", "groups", and "entitlements" attributes of the User resource schema (pages 24-25 of RFC 7643 for the text; pages 63-67 of RFC 7643 for the schema)? In the schema the attributes are all "complex" (object) type and "multivalued" (array of), although the text for some of these attributes has some "No vocabulary or syntax..." remarks.
If that understanding is correct, it might be a good idea to replace the references to "RFC 7643", "Section 4.1.2 of RFC 7643", and "RFC 7643, Section 4.1.2" with something more specific like "the ____ attribute(s) of the User resource schema from Section 4.1.2 of RFC 7643". On Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 15:33 Brian Campbell <[email protected]> wrote: > At some point I'm going to be among the lucky few who will be asked to > review the JWT claims registration request. One of the criteria to consider > is "whether the registration description is clear" and Logan's questions > suggest that perhaps the descriptions of these claims are not sufficiently > clear. My assumption was that the claim value for "roles", "groups" and > "entitlements" was going to be an array of strings. Trying to validate my > assumption, I went looking at the text in > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-access-token-jwt-09#section-2.2.3.1 > and > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-access-token-jwt-09#section-7.2 > and followed the reference to > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7643#section-4.1.2 and, honestly, it > wasn't particularly clear to me. Maybe it's my lack of familiarity with the > details of SCIM and the language of RFC 7643. But I think that, for the > sake of clarity and interoperability, some additional specificity is > needed. > > Side note: the "Section 2.2.2.1 of [[this specification]]" references in > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-access-token-jwt-09#section-7.2.1 > are problmatic (there is no such section in this document) and probably > should be to 2.2.3.1. > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 6:28 PM Vittorio Bertocci <vittorio.bertocci= > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Logan, >> >> Thanks for the note. >> >> The intent would be to present that information in the same way you would >> when querying a users/<id>, encoded in claims; hence groups would be a list >> of values representing what groups the subject belongs to, rather than a >> list of full group definitions (with all the other members belonging to >> them, for example) which would go beyond the intended use of the >> information (supplying authorization information about the subject). >> >> I tried to keep the language high level as I didn’t want to duplicate >> SCIM guidance, or inadvertently narrow down the options products have to >> implement this. If you think this is too vague, we can try to be more >> specific. >> >> >> >> *From: *OAuth <[email protected]> on behalf of Logan Widick < >> [email protected]> >> *Date: *Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 14:21 >> *To: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> *Subject: *[OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-access-token-jwt-08 question >> >> >> >> I took a look at Section 2.2.3.1: Claims for Authorization Outside of >> Delegation Scenarios ( >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-access-token-jwt-08#section-2.2.3.1) >> and I do not understand what exactly the formats of the "roles", "groups", >> and "entitlements" claims will be. >> >> Will the "roles" claim be an array of strings (role names, IDs, or >> links), an array of the "roles" objects from the SCIM User schema (pages >> 66-67 of RFC 7643), or something else? >> >> Will the "groups" claim be an array of strings (group names, IDs, or >> links), an array of the "groups" objects from the SCIM User schema (pages >> 63-64 of RFC 7643), an array of SCIM Group schema objects (pages 69-70 of >> RFC 7643), or something else? >> >> Will the "entitlements" claim be an array of strings (entitlement names, >> IDs, or links), an array of the "entitlements" objects from the SCIM User >> schema (pages 65-66 of RFC 7643), or something else? >> >> Sincerely, >> >> Logan Widick >> _______________________________________________ >> OAuth mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >> > > *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and > privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any > review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. > If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender > immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from > your computer. Thank you.*
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
