[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-jones-oauth-jwt-bearer) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 RFC 7523

OAuth Working Group                                             M. Jones
Internet-Draft                                                 Microsoft
Intended status: Standards Track                             B. Campbell
Expires: May 16, 2015                                      Ping Identity
                                                            C. Mortimore
                                                              Salesforce
                                                       November 12, 2014


  JSON Web Token (JWT) Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and
                          Authorization Grants
                     draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-12

Abstract

   This specification defines the use of a JSON Web Token (JWT) Bearer
   Token as a means for requesting an OAuth 2.0 access token as well as
   for use as a means of client authentication.

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 http://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 May 16, 2015.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 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
   (http://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



Jones, et al.             Expires May 16, 2015                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft        OAuth JWT Assertion Profiles         November 2014


   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Notational Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  HTTP Parameter Bindings for Transporting Assertions . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Using JWTs as Authorization Grants  . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Using JWTs for Client Authentication  . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  JWT Format and Processing Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Authorization Grant Processing  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.2.  Client Authentication Processing  . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   4.  Authorization Grant Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  Interoperability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  Privacy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     8.1.  Sub-Namespace Registration of urn:ietf:params:oauth
           :grant-type:jwt-bearer  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     8.2.  Sub-Namespace Registration of urn:ietf:params:oauth
           :client-assertion-type:jwt-bearer . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Appendix B.  Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

1.  Introduction

   JSON Web Token (JWT) [JWT] is a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)
   [RFC7159] based security token encoding that enables identity and
   security information to be shared across security domains.  A
   security token is generally issued by an identity provider and
   consumed by a relying party that relies on its content to identify
   the token's subject for security related purposes.

   The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework [RFC6749] provides a method for
   making authenticated HTTP requests to a resource using an access
   token.  Access tokens are issued to third-party clients by an
   authorization server (AS) with the (sometimes implicit) approval of
   the resource owner.  In OAuth, an authorization grant is an abstract
   term used to describe intermediate credentials that represent the
   resource owner authorization.  An authorization grant is used by the
   client to obtain an access token.  Several authorization grant types
   are defined to support a wide range of client types and user



Jones, et al.             Expires May 16, 2015                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft        OAuth JWT Assertion Profiles         November 2014


   experiences.  OAuth also allows for the definition of new extension
   grant types to support additional clients or to provide a bridge
   between OAuth and other trust frameworks.  Finally, OAuth allows the
   definition of additional authentication mechanisms to be used by
   clients when interacting with the authorization server.

   The Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and
   Authorization Grants [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions] specification is an
   abstract extension to OAuth 2.0 that provides a general framework for
   the use of Assertions (a.k.a.  Security Tokens) as client credentials
   and/or authorization grants with OAuth 2.0.  This specification
   profiles the Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication
   and Authorization Grants [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions] specification to
   define an extension grant type that uses a JSON Web Token (JWT)
   Bearer Token to request an OAuth 2.0 access token as well as for use
   as client credentials.  The format and processing rules for the JWT
   defined in this specification are intentionally similar, though not
   identical, to those in the closely related SAML 2.0 Profile for OAuth
   2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants
   [I-D.ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer] specification.  The differences arise
   where the structure and semantics of JWTs differ from SAML
   assertions.  JWTs, for example, have no direct equivalent to the
   <SubjectConfirmation> or <AuthnStatement> elements of SAML
   assertions.

   This document defines how a JSON Web Token (JWT) Bearer Token can be
   used to request an access token when a client wishes to utilize an
   existing trust relationship, expressed through the semantics of (and
   digital signature or Message Authentication Code calculated over) the
   JWT, without a direct user approval step at the authorization server.
   It also defines how a JWT can be used as a client authentication
   mechanism.  The use of a security token for client authentication is
   orthogonal to and separable from using a security token as an
   authorization grant.  They can be used either in combination or
   separately.  Client authentication using a JWT is nothing more than
   an alternative way for a client to authenticate to the token endpoint
   and must be used in conjunction with some grant type to form a
   complete and meaningful protocol request.  JWT authorization grants
   may be used with or without client authentication or identification.
   Whether or not client authentication is needed in conjunction with a
   JWT authorization grant, as well as the supported types of client
   authentication, are policy decisions at the discretion of the
   authorization server.

   The process by which the client obtains the JWT, prior to exchanging
   it with the authorization server or using it for client
   authentication, is out of scope.




Jones, et al.             Expires May 16, 2015                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft        OAuth JWT Assertion Profiles         November 2014


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].

   Unless otherwise noted, all the protocol parameter names and values
   are case sensitive.

1.2.  Terminology

   All terms are as defined in The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework
   [RFC6749], the Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client
   Authentication and Authorization Grants [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions],
   and the JSON Web Token (JWT) [JWT] specifications.

2.  HTTP Parameter Bindings for Transporting Assertions

   The Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and
   Authorization Grants [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions] specification
   defines generic HTTP parameters for transporting Assertions (a.k.a.
   Security Tokens) during interactions with a token endpoint.  This
   section defines specific parameters and treatments of those
   parameters for use with JWT bearer tokens.

2.1.  Using JWTs as Authorization Grants

   To use a Bearer JWT as an authorization grant, the client uses an
   access token request as defined in Section 4 of the Assertion
   Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization
   Grants [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions] specification with the following
   specific parameter values and encodings.

   The value of the "grant_type" is "urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-
   type:jwt-bearer".

   The value of the "assertion" parameter MUST contain a single JWT.

   The "scope" parameter may be used, as defined in the Assertion
   Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization
   Grants [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions] specification, to indicate the
   requested scope.

   Authentication of the client is optional, as described in
   Section 3.2.1 of OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749] and consequently, the
   "client_id" is only needed when a form of client authentication that
   relies on the parameter is used.




Jones, et al.             Expires May 16, 2015                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft        OAuth JWT Assertion Profiles         November 2014


   The following example demonstrates an Access Token Request with a JWT
   as an authorization grant (with extra line breaks for display
   purposes only):

     POST /token.oauth2 HTTP/1.1
     Host: as.example.com
     Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded

     grant_type=urn%3Aietf%3Aparams%3Aoauth%3Agrant-type%3Ajwt-bearer
     &assertion=eyJhbGciOiJFUzI1NiJ9.
     eyJpc3Mi[...omitted for brevity...].
     J9l-ZhwP[...omitted for brevity...]

2.2.  Using JWTs for Client Authentication

   To use a JWT Bearer Token for client authentication, the client uses
   the following parameter values and encodings.

   The value of the "client_assertion_type" is
   "urn:ietf:params:oauth:client-assertion-type:jwt-bearer".

   The value of the "client_assertion" parameter contains a single JWT.
   It MUST NOT contain more than one JWT.

   The following example demonstrates client authentication using a JWT
   during the presentation of an authorization code grant in an Access
   Token Request (with extra line breaks for display purposes only):

     POST /token.oauth2 HTTP/1.1
     Host: as.example.com
     Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded

     grant_type=authorization_code&
     code=vAZEIHjQTHuGgaSvyW9hO0RpusLzkvTOww3trZBxZpo&
     client_assertion_type=urn%3Aietf%3Aparams%3Aoauth%3A
     client-assertion-type%3Ajwt-bearer&
     client_assertion=eyJhbGciOiJSUzI1NiJ9.
     eyJpc3Mi[...omitted for brevity...].
     cC4hiUPo[...omitted for brevity...]

3.  JWT Format and Processing Requirements

   In order to issue an access token response as described in OAuth 2.0
   [RFC6749] or to rely on a JWT for client authentication, the
   authorization server MUST validate the JWT according to the criteria
   below.  Application of additional restrictions and policy are at the
   discretion of the authorization server.




Jones, et al.             Expires May 16, 2015                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft        OAuth JWT Assertion Profiles         November 2014


   1.   The JWT MUST contain an "iss" (issuer) claim that contains a
        unique identifier for the entity that issued the JWT.  In the
        absence of an application profile specifying otherwise,
        compliant applications MUST compare Issuer values using the
        Simple String Comparison method defined in Section 6.2.1 of RFC
        3986 [RFC3986].

   2.   The JWT MUST contain a "sub" (subject) claim identifying the
        principal that is the subject of the JWT.  Two cases need to be
        differentiated:

        A.  For the authorization grant, the subject typically
            identifies an authorized accessor for which the access token
            is being requested (i.e., the resource owner or an
            authorized delegate), but in some cases, may be a
            pseudonymous identifier or other value denoting an anonymous
            user.

        B.  For client authentication, the subject MUST be the
            "client_id" of the OAuth client.

   3.   The JWT MUST contain an "aud" (audience) claim containing a
        value that identifies the authorization server as an intended
        audience.  The token endpoint URL of the authorization server
        MAY be used as a value for an "aud" element to identify the
        authorization server as an intended audience of the JWT.  The
        Authorization Server MUST reject any JWT that does not contain
        its own identity as the intended audience In the absence of an
        application profile specifying otherwise, compliant applications
        MUST compare the audience values using the Simple String
        Comparison method defined in Section 6.2.1 of RFC 3986
        [RFC3986].  As noted in Section 5, the precise strings to be
        used as the audience for a given Authorization Server must be
        configured out-of-band by the Authorization Server and the
        Issuer of the JWT.

   4.   The JWT MUST contain an "exp" (expiration) claim that limits the
        time window during which the JWT can be used.  The authorization
        server MUST reject any JWT with an expiration time that has
        passed, subject to allowable clock skew between systems.  Note
        that the authorization server may reject JWTs with an "exp"
        claim value that is unreasonably far in the future.

   5.   The JWT MAY contain an "nbf" (not before) claim that identifies
        the time before which the token MUST NOT be accepted for
        processing.





Jones, et al.             Expires May 16, 2015                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft        OAuth JWT Assertion Profiles         November 2014


   6.   The JWT MAY contain an "iat" (issued at) claim that identifies
        the time at which the JWT was issued.  Note that the
        authorization server may reject JWTs with an "iat" claim value
        that is unreasonably far in the past.

   7.   The JWT MAY contain a "jti" (JWT ID) claim that provides a
        unique identifier for the token.  The authorization server MAY
        ensure that JWTs are not replayed by maintaining the set of used
        "jti" values for the length of time for which the JWT would be
        considered valid based on the applicable "exp" instant.

   8.   The JWT MAY contain other claims.

   9.   The JWT MUST be digitally signed or have a Message
        Authentication Code applied by the issuer.  The authorization
        server MUST reject JWTs with an invalid signature or Message
        Authentication Code.

   10.  The authorization server MUST reject a JWT that is not valid in
        all other respects per JSON Web Token (JWT) [JWT].

3.1.  Authorization Grant Processing

   JWT authorization grants may be used with or without client
   authentication or identification.  Whether or not client
   authentication is needed in conjunction with a JWT authorization
   grant, as well as the supported types of client authentication, are
   policy decisions at the discretion of the authorization server.
   However, if client credentials are present in the request, the
   authorization server MUST validate them.

   If the JWT is not valid, or the current time is not within the
   token's valid time window for use, the authorization server
   constructs an error response as defined in OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749].  The
   value of the "error" parameter MUST be the "invalid_grant" error
   code.  The authorization server MAY include additional information
   regarding the reasons the JWT was considered invalid using the
   "error_description" or "error_uri" parameters.













Jones, et al.             Expires May 16, 2015                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft        OAuth JWT Assertion Profiles         November 2014


   For example:

     HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
     Content-Type: application/json
     Cache-Control: no-store

     {
      "error":"invalid_grant",
      "error_description":"Audience validation failed"
     }

3.2.  Client Authentication Processing

   If the client JWT is not valid, the authorization server constructs
   an error response as defined in OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749].  The value of
   the "error" parameter MUST be the "invalid_client" error code.  The
   authorization server MAY include additional information regarding the
   reasons the JWT was considered invalid using the "error_description"
   or "error_uri" parameters.

4.  Authorization Grant Example

   The following examples illustrate what a conforming JWT and an access
   token request would look like.

   The example shows a JWT issued and signed by the system entity
   identified as "https://jwt-idp.example.com".  The subject of the JWT
   is identified by email address as "mike@example.com".  The intended
   audience of the JWT is "https://jwt-rp.example.net", which is an
   identifier with which the authorization server identifies itself.
   The JWT is sent as part of an access token request to the
   authorization server's token endpoint at "https://authz.example.net/
   token.oauth2".

   Below is an example JSON object that could be encoded to produce the
   JWT Claims Object for a JWT:

     {"iss":"https://jwt-idp.example.com",
      "sub":"mailto:mike@example.com",
      "aud":"https://jwt-rp.example.net",
      "nbf":1300815780,
      "exp":1300819380,
      "http://claims.example.com/member":true}








Jones, et al.             Expires May 16, 2015                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft        OAuth JWT Assertion Profiles         November 2014


   The following example JSON object, used as the header of a JWT,
   declares that the JWT is signed with the ECDSA P-256 SHA-256
   algorithm.

     {"alg":"ES256"}

   To present the JWT with the claims and header shown in the previous
   example as part of an access token request, for example, the client
   might make the following HTTPS request (with extra line breaks for
   display purposes only):

     POST /token.oauth2 HTTP/1.1
     Host: authz.example.net
     Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded

     grant_type=urn%3Aietf%3Aparams%3Aoauth%3Agrant-type%3Ajwt-bearer
     &assertion=eyJhbGciOiJFUzI1NiJ9.
     eyJpc3Mi[...omitted for brevity...].
     J9l-ZhwP[...omitted for brevity...]

5.  Interoperability Considerations

   Agreement between system entities regarding identifiers, keys, and
   endpoints is required in order to achieve interoperable deployments
   of this profile.  Specific items that require agreement are as
   follows: values for the issuer and audience identifiers, the location
   of the token endpoint, the key used to apply and verify the digital
   signature or Message Authentication Code over the JWT, one-time use
   restrictions on the JWT, maximum JWT lifetime allowed, and the
   specific subject and claim requirements of the JWT.  The exchange of
   such information is explicitly out of scope for this specification.
   In some cases, additional profiles may be created that constrain or
   prescribe these values or specify how they are to be exchanged.
   Examples of such profiles include the OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client
   Registration Core Protocol [I-D.ietf-oauth-dyn-reg], OpenID Connect
   Dynamic Client Registration 1.0 [OpenID.Registration], and OpenID
   Connect Discovery 1.0 [OpenID.Discovery].

   The "RS256" algorithm, from [I-D.ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms], is a
   mandatory to implement JSON Web Signature algorithm for this profile.

6.  Security Considerations

   The security considerations described within the Assertion Framework
   for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants
   [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions], The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework
   [RFC6749], and the JSON Web Token (JWT) [JWT] specifications are all
   applicable to this document.



Jones, et al.             Expires May 16, 2015                  [Page 9]


Internet-Draft        OAuth JWT Assertion Profiles         November 2014


   The specification does not mandate replay protection for the JWT
   usage for either the authorization grant or for client
   authentication.  It is an optional feature, which implementations may
   employ at their own discretion.

7.  Privacy Considerations

   A JWT may contain privacy-sensitive information and, to prevent
   disclosure of such information to unintended parties, should only be
   transmitted over encrypted channels, such as TLS.  In cases where it
   is desirable to prevent disclosure of certain information to the
   client, the JWT should be be encrypted to the authorization server.

   Deployments should determine the minimum amount of information
   necessary to complete the exchange and include only such claims in
   the JWT.  In some cases, the "sub" (subject) claim can be a value
   representing an anonymous or pseudonymous user, as described in
   Section 6.3.1 of the Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client
   Authentication and Authorization Grants [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions].

8.  IANA Considerations

8.1.  Sub-Namespace Registration of urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-
      type:jwt-bearer

   This specification registers the value "grant-type:jwt-bearer" in the
   IANA urn:ietf:params:oauth registry established in An IETF URN Sub-
   Namespace for OAuth [RFC6755].

   o  URN: urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:jwt-bearer

   o  Common Name: JWT Bearer Token Grant Type Profile for OAuth 2.0

   o  Change controller: IESG

   o  Specification Document: [[this document]]

8.2.  Sub-Namespace Registration of urn:ietf:params:oauth:client-
      assertion-type:jwt-bearer

   This specification registers the value "client-assertion-type:jwt-
   bearer" in the IANA urn:ietf:params:oauth registry established in An
   IETF URN Sub-Namespace for OAuth [RFC6755].

   o  URN: urn:ietf:params:oauth:client-assertion-type:jwt-bearer

   o  Common Name: JWT Bearer Token Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client
      Authentication



Jones, et al.             Expires May 16, 2015                 [Page 10]


Internet-Draft        OAuth JWT Assertion Profiles         November 2014


   o  Change controller: IESG

   o  Specification Document: [[this document]]

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms]
              Jones, M., "JSON Web Algorithms (JWA)", draft-ietf-jose-
              json-web-algorithms-36 (work in progress), October 2014.

   [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions]
              Campbell, B., Mortimore, C., Jones, M., and Y. Goland,
              "Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication
              and Authorization Grants", draft-ietf-oauth-assertions
              (work in progress), October 2014.

   [JWT]      Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token
              (JWT)", draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token (work in
              progress), October 2014.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3986]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
              Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC
              3986, January 2005.

   [RFC6749]  Hardt, D., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework", RFC
              6749, October 2012.

   [RFC7159]  Bray, T., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
              Interchange Format", RFC 7159, March 2014.

9.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-oauth-dyn-reg]
              Richer, J., Jones, M., Bradley, J., Machulak, M., and P.
              Hunt, "OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration Protocol",
              draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-20 (work in progress), August
              2014.

   [I-D.ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer]
              Campbell, B., Mortimore, C., and M. Jones, "SAML 2.0
              Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and
              Authorization Grants", draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer (work
              in progress), November 2014.



Jones, et al.             Expires May 16, 2015                 [Page 11]


Internet-Draft        OAuth JWT Assertion Profiles         November 2014


   [OpenID.Discovery]
              Sakimura, N., Bradley, J., Jones, M., and E. Jay, "OpenID
              Connect Discovery 1.0", February 2014.

   [OpenID.Registration]
              Sakimura, N., Bradley, J., and M. Jones, "OpenID Connect
              Dynamic Client Registration 1.0", February 2014.

   [RFC6755]  Campbell, B. and H. Tschofenig, "An IETF URN Sub-Namespace
              for OAuth", RFC 6755, October 2012.

Appendix A.  Acknowledgements

   This profile was derived from SAML 2.0 Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client
   Authentication and Authorization Grants [I-D.ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer]
   by Brian Campbell and Chuck Mortimore.

Appendix B.  Document History

   [[ to be removed by the RFC editor before publication as an RFC ]]

   draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-12

   o  Fix typo per http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/
      msg13790.html

   draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-11

   o  Changes/suggestions from IESG reviews.

   draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-10

   o  Added Privacy Considerations section per AD review discussion
      http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg13148.html
      and http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/
      msg13144.html

   draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-09

   o  Clarified some text around the treatment of subject based on the
      rough rough consensus from the thread staring at
      http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg12630.html

   draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-08

   o  Updated references, including replacing references to RFC 4627
      with RFC 7159.




Jones, et al.             Expires May 16, 2015                 [Page 12]


Internet-Draft        OAuth JWT Assertion Profiles         November 2014


   draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-07

   o  Clean up language around subject per http://www.ietf.org/mail-
      archive/web/oauth/current/msg12250.html.

   o  As suggested in http://www.ietf.org/mail-
      archive/web/oauth/current/msg12251.html stated that "In the
      absence of an application profile specifying otherwise, compliant
      applications MUST compare the audience values using the Simple
      String Comparison method defined in Section 6.2.1 of RFC 3986."

   o  Added one-time use, maximum lifetime, and specific subject and
      attribute requirements to Interoperability Considerations based on
      http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg12252.html.

   o  Remove "or its subject confirmation requirements cannot be met"
      text.

   o  Reword security considerations and mention that replay protection
      is not mandated based on http://www.ietf.org/mail-
      archive/web/oauth/current/msg12259.html.

   -06

   o  Stated that issuer and audience values SHOULD be compared using
      the Simple String Comparison method defined in Section 6.2.1 of
      RFC 3986 unless otherwise specified by the application.

   -05

   o  Changed title from "JSON Web Token (JWT) Bearer Token Profiles for
      OAuth 2.0" to "JSON Web Token (JWT) Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client
      Authentication and Authorization Grants" to be more explicit about
      the scope of the document per http://www.ietf.org/mail-
      archive/web/oauth/current/msg11063.html.

   o  Numbered the list of processing rules.

   o  Smallish editorial cleanups to try and improve readability and
      comprehensibility.

   o  Cleaner split out of the processing rules in cases where they
      differ for client authentication and authorization grants.

   o  Clarified the parameters that are used/available for authorization
      grants.

   o  Added Interoperability Considerations section.



Jones, et al.             Expires May 16, 2015                 [Page 13]


Internet-Draft        OAuth JWT Assertion Profiles         November 2014


   o  Added more explanatory context to the example in Section 4.

   -04

   o  Changed the name of the "prn" claim to "sub" (subject) both to
      more closely align with SAML name usage and to use a more
      intuitive name.

   o  Added seriesInfo information to Internet Draft references.

   -03

   o  Reference RFC 6749 and RFC 6755.

   -02

   o  Add more text to intro explaining that an assertion/JWT grant type
      can be used with or without client authentication/identification
      and that client assertion/JWT authentication is nothing more than
      an alternative way for a client to authenticate to the token
      endpoint

   o  Add examples to Sections 2.1 and 2.2

   o  Update references

   -01

   o  Tracked specification name changes: "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization
      Protocol" to "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework" and "OAuth
      2.0 Assertion Profile" to "Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0".

   o  Merged in changes between draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer-11 and
      draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer-13.  All changes were strictly
      editorial.

   -00

   o  Created the initial IETF draft based upon draft-jones-oauth-jwt-
      bearer-04 with no normative changes.

Authors' Addresses

   Michael B. Jones
   Microsoft

   Email: mbj@microsoft.com
   URI:   http://self-issued.info/



Jones, et al.             Expires May 16, 2015                 [Page 14]


Internet-Draft        OAuth JWT Assertion Profiles         November 2014


   Brian Campbell
   Ping Identity

   Email: brian.d.campbell@gmail.com


   Chuck Mortimore
   Salesforce

   Email: cmortimore@salesforce.com









































Jones, et al.             Expires May 16, 2015                 [Page 15]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.120, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/