[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01

OAuth Working Group                                             G. Pujol
Internet-Draft                                                        DS
Intended status: Standards Track                           July 14, 2018
Expires: January 15, 2019


                    OAuth 2.0 Token Revocation List
                       draft-gpujol-oauth-atrl-00

Abstract

   This document defines a format and a standardised uri for a Token
   Revocation List.  An OAuth 2.0 authorization server can use those to
   expose a current list of revoked access tokens identifiers that it
   previously issued, intended for use by OAuth 2.0 resource servers.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 15, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.




Pujol                   Expires January 15, 2019                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                  OAuth TRL                      July 2018


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Notational Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Token Revocation List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Symbols and abbreviated terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Authorization server metadata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Token Revocation List Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Token Revocation List Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Token Revocation List Response  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     8.1.  OAuth 2.0 Authorization Server Metadata . . . . . . . . .   8
       8.1.1.  Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   9.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Introduction

   OAuth 2.0 Token Revocation [RFC7009] defines a way for OAuth 2.0
   clients to revoke access tokens and refresh tokens issued by an OAuth
   2.0 authorization server.  While refresh token are typically only
   used by the authorization server itself, access tokens on the other
   hand are consumed by OAuth 2.0 resource servers; those are logically
   separated from the authorization server, and must learn about the
   revocation status of the access tokens they receive, if the local
   security requirements mandates it.

   Some deployments of OAuth 2.0 (or derived protocols) use signed JWT
   as access tokens.  Those access tokens are self-sufficient for
   resource server to validate that the access token is currently not
   expired, but provide no means for the resource server to obtain the
   revocation status of the token.

   OAuth 2.0 Token Introspection [RFC7662] defines a way for resource
   servers to obtain the metadata attached to a given access token.  For
   performance reasons, this metadata may be put in cache by the
   resource server, instead of calling the introspection endpoint
   synchronously every time the same access token is received.  This
   voids the possibility for the resource server to be informed about a
   revocation of an access token that occurs after the first call to the
   introspection endpoint.

   This specification defines a Token Revocation List (TRL), a document
   exposed by the OAuth 2.0 authorization server, containing a list of
   revoked access tokens identifiers.  Resource servers can periodically
   retrieve that list to obtain the revocation status of access tokens.



Pujol                   Expires January 15, 2019                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                  OAuth TRL                      July 2018


   By doing so, they can either flag currently cached introspected token
   metadata as revoked, or avoid unnecessary calls to the introspection
   endpoint for unknown tokens that are already expired when they are
   received by the resource server.

   This allows better performance for the authorization server and lower
   response times for resource requests [RFC6750], since:

   for resource server  this allow caching the token introspection
      response until the expiration date of the access token.  The TRL
      can be retrieved asynchronously to actual resource requests, so
      the round trip to the authorization server does not add up to the
      resource server response time.

   for the authorization server  this avoids unnecessary calls to the
      introspection endpoint

   This is especially important in scenarios where the authorization
   server issues relatively long lived access tokens, and the
   authorization server and resource servers are loosely coupled (e.g.
   User Managed Access [UMA]), and the introspection endpoint is heavily
   used.

   Note that using short-lived access tokens should be the preferred way
   to protect sensitive resources, rather than relying on the Token
   Revocation List.  Issuing a TRL does not provide any assurance that
   resource servers will use it, nor does provide real time access token
   revocation; depending on their configuration, resource servers might
   take a few seconds or minutes to obtain a fresh TRL after any given
   token is expired.  During that time, access tokens may still be
   considered as active by resource servers.  This hardly avoidable
   delay may however be better than not checking the revocation status
   at all.

1.1.  Notational Conventions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

2.  Terminology

   For the purposes of this specification, the following terms and
   definitions in addition to what is defined in OAuth 2.0 Framework
   [RFC6749], Authorization server [RFC6749], Resource Server [RFC6749],
   Access Token [RFC6749], and JSON Web Encryption [RFC7519] apply.





Pujol                   Expires January 15, 2019                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                  OAuth TRL                      July 2018


2.1.  Token Revocation List

   JWT [RFC7519] that holds a list of access tokens identifiers issued
   by a given authorization server, that are revoked but not expired at
   the time it is issued.

2.2.  Symbols and abbreviated terms

   The following abbreviations are common to this specification.

   JWT  JSON Web Token

   URI  Uniform Resource Identifier

   URL  Uniform Resource Locator

   TRL  Token Revocation List

3.  Authorization server metadata

   Authorization servers can have metadata describing their
   configuration.  The following authorization server metadata value is
   used by this specification and are registered in the IANA "OAuth
   Authorization Server Metadata" registry established in Section 7.1 of
   OAuth 2.0 Authorization Server Metadata [RFC8414]:

   token_revocation_list_uri  OPTIONAL.  URL [RFC3986] of an
      authorization server, where resource servers can retrieve the
      Token Revocation List.  This url MUST use the https scheme.  The
      referenced document contains a JWT whose payload contains the list
      of currently revoked access tokens.  The exact contents of this
      JWT is defined in the present specification.

   If an authorization server advertises the presence of its token
   revocation list, resource servers SHOULD use it as their prefered way
   to obtain the revocation status of access tokens, rather that using
   the token introspection endpoint.

4.  Token Revocation List Format

   A Token Revocation List (TRL) is a JWT.  The JWT payload MUST contain
   the following claims:

   iss  REQUIRED.  MUST be the authorization server issuer

   iat  REQUIRED. time at which the TRL was generated, as defined in the





Pujol                   Expires January 15, 2019                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                  OAuth TRL                      July 2018


   exp  REQUIRED. as defined in [RFC7519], time at which the TRL SHOULD
      be considered as expired by resource servers.

   rev_jtis  REQUIRED.  [CLAIM NAME TO BE REVISED] a JSON list whose
      items are the JWT Identifiers (jti) of the revoked, non-expired
      access tokens at the time the TRL was generated.  If no tokens are
      revoked at that time, this MUST be an empty list.

   rev_ctis  OPTIONAL.  [NOT SURE IF ACTUALLY USEFUL IN THIS
      SPECIFICATION] OPTIONAL: if the authorization server issues access
      tokens that are in CWT format [RFC8392], a JSON list of all
      revoked, non-expired access tokens in CWT format at the time the
      TRL was generated.

   The JWT payload MAY contain other claims.  Claims not known or not
   understood by resource servers MUST be ignored.

   Note that despite the name, a "jti" is not always bound to an access
   token in JWT format.  The introspection endpoint [RFC7662] returns a
   jti value for tokens that are in an opaque format.  This jti is then
   an unique identifier for a token, no matter if that token is in JWT
   (or similar structured, self-carrying formats) or in an opaque
   format.

   To allow resource server to learn about the revocation status of a
   token, the resource server must be able to obtain this token unique
   identifier.  This can be done either by reading the jti claims from
   access tokens that are in JWT format, or by reading the jti attribute
   as returned by the authorization server introspection endpoint.

   The TRL exposed by an OAuth authorization server at any given time
   MUST have an expiration date (exp) in the future and SHOULD have an
   expiration date reasonably far away in the future.  The exact
   frequency for an authorization server to generate a new TRL and the
   lifetime of generated TRLs is deployment specific and is out of scope
   of this specification.  Some authorization servers MAY choose to
   generate a new TRL every time an access token is revoked, while
   others MAY generate a new TRL periodically at a fixed time period.
   Some MAY also choose to generate a new TRL only when an access token
   considered as security sensitive is revoked (e.g. bound to a scope
   that is internally flagged as sensitive).

   A TRL SHOULD contain only a list of jtis that are revoked and not
   expired at the time the TRL is generated.  A TRL MUST NOT contain a
   jti of a token that has not been revoked before the TRL is generated.
   A TRL MAY contain some jtis that have been revoked but are already
   expired at the time the TRL is generated.




Pujol                   Expires January 15, 2019                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                  OAuth TRL                      July 2018


   A TRL JWT SHOULD be signed.  If signature is used, that signature
   MUST use an asymmetric algorithm, and the JWT header MUST contain
   both the "alg" and the "kid" claims; the JWK referenced by this kid
   MUST be part of the JWKS [RFC7517] exposed by the authorization
   server on its jwks_uri.  If the JWT is not signed, it must be
   represented as an Unsecured JWT [RFC7519].

   A TRL JWT MUST NOT be encrypted.

5.  Token Revocation List Request

   An authorization server Token Revocation List MUST be queryied using
   an HTTP "GET" request [RFC7230] at the URL defined in the
   authorization server metadata.

   The following is a non-normative example TRL request (with line
   breaks for display purposes only):

           GET /token_revocation_list HTTP/1.1
           Host: server.example.com

   Once a resource server obtains a TRL and that TRL reaches its
   expiration date, a resource server SHOULD obtain a new TRL from the
   authorization server.  A resource server MAY obtain a new TRL before
   the last TRL in its possession is expired.  The frequency at which
   the resource server obtains updated TRLs is out of the scope of this
   specification, and depends on the resource server security
   requirements.

6.  Token Revocation List Response

   An authorization server responds to a Token Revocation List request
   with the most recently available TRL and the Content-Type
   "application/jwt".

















Pujol                   Expires January 15, 2019                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                  OAuth TRL                      July 2018


   The following is a non-normative example TRL response (with line
   breaks for display purposes only):

     200 OK
     Content-Type: application/jwt
     Content-Length: 542

     eyJhbGciOiJSUzI1NiIsImtpZCI6IlRSTF8yMDE4MDcxMCJ9.eyJleHAiOjE1MzE
     zMjMwNjguMjc3MzYsImlhdCI6MTUzMTMyMzAwOC4yNzczNiwiaXNzIjoic2VydmV
     yLmV4YW1wbGUuY29tIiwicmV2X2p0aXMiOlsiMTIzNDU2NzkwIiwiMjM0NTY3ODk
     wMSJdfQ.LdMV-QMRsXwHxI4ZfQvQEv5_wNe22VHBa5x6CIbG-3H-0R2nMnB_tNeA
     8nngNNo_vdDRj6Z25Bu6wlTQOM8VufPbUGyAM1Q3LLjPU8pcEnM79Z8LW305M09I
     Laumgg94HrFSTPyEnlIGkVFF_x2vYTf-FbYEFlz2he3WDatoPXXXh9gVlfTeinPw
     VtEZv-k740nUHVJjoSLSS7f_ZVmRnT_wUF_Wisx5YRtrkcu8bXJqEykswgYmrzxe
     wCHsc03qEV3HwQPc15_MJBF8tQT9vLTwnYSdMXJh9J5uREzIEFqBQpQyIAtbqVT7
     eD9OMQOttWfB5LVtlnAVHRRdFVkuWA

7.  Security Considerations

   The TRL is publicly exposed to anyone, not just authorized resource
   servers.  However the TRL does not contain anything security
   sensitive, just identifiers of tokens that are not sufficient to gain
   any access anywhere.  An alternative would be to require some form of
   authentication of TRL clients (which would be resource servers).
   However, the added complexity, and (however small) performance impact
   of managing that authentication would curb usage of the TRL.

   The TRL SHOULD be signed by its issuer (the authorization server).
   Since the TRL MUST be retrieved over an https channel, the signature
   validation may be considered optional when the TRL is directly used
   by the client initiating the TLS connection.  However, in real life,
   the https security and the TRL SHOULD be signed to allow end-to-end
   security and temporary inalterable storage on resource servers.  The
   cost of a TRL signature being equivalent to signing a JWT token (e.g.
   an ID Token), the TRL SHOULD be signed.  If the TRL is signed, the
   resource servers MUST validate the signature before trusting the TRL.
   This avoids misuse or denial of service when the party controlling
   the https (server-side) connection (which, in complex environments,
   may be different than the entity controlling the authorization
   servers) remove revoked tokens from the TRL, and/or issues a TRL
   containing non-revoked tokens.

8.  IANA Considerations








Pujol                   Expires January 15, 2019                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                  OAuth TRL                      July 2018


8.1.  OAuth 2.0 Authorization Server Metadata

   This specification registers the following values in the IANA "OAuth
   2.0 Authorization Server Metadata" registry [IANA.OAuth.Parameters]
   established by [RFC8414].

8.1.1.  Registry Contents

   o  Metadata name: token_revocation_list_uri
   o  Metadata Description: The Token Revocation List Uri.
   o  Change controller: IESG
   o  Specification Document: Section 3 of [[ this specification ]]

9.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC3986]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
              Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
              RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.

   [RFC6749]  Hardt, D., Ed., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework",
              RFC 6749, DOI 10.17487/RFC6749, October 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6749>.

   [RFC6750]  Jones, M. and D. Hardt, "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization
              Framework: Bearer Token Usage", RFC 6750,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6750, October 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6750>.

   [RFC7009]  Lodderstedt, T., Ed., Dronia, S., and M. Scurtescu, "OAuth
              2.0 Token Revocation", RFC 7009, DOI 10.17487/RFC7009,
              August 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7009>.

   [RFC7230]  Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
              Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing",
              RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>.

   [RFC7517]  Jones, M., "JSON Web Key (JWK)", RFC 7517,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7517, May 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7517>.





Pujol                   Expires January 15, 2019                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                  OAuth TRL                      July 2018


   [RFC7519]  Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token
              (JWT)", RFC 7519, DOI 10.17487/RFC7519, May 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7519>.

   [RFC7662]  Richer, J., Ed., "OAuth 2.0 Token Introspection",
              RFC 7662, DOI 10.17487/RFC7662, October 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7662>.

   [RFC8392]  Jones, M., Wahlstroem, E., Erdtman, S., and H. Tschofenig,
              "CBOR Web Token (CWT)", RFC 8392, DOI 10.17487/RFC8392,
              May 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8392>.

   [RFC8414]  Jones, M., Sakimura, N., and J. Bradley, "OAuth 2.0
              Authorization Server Metadata", RFC 8414,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8414, June 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8414>.

Author's Address

   Guillaume Pujol
   Digital Security
   France

   Email: guill.p.linux@gmail.com



























Pujol                   Expires January 15, 2019                [Page 9]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/