[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]
Versions: (draft-campbell-oauth-saml) 00 01
02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 RFC 7522
B. Campbell, Ed.
Internet-Draft Ping Identity Corp.
Intended status: Standards Track C. Mortimore
Expires: June 19, 2011 Salesforce.com
December 16, 2010
SAML 2.0 Bearer Assertion Grant Type Profile for OAuth 2.0
draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer-00
Abstract
This specification defines the use of a SAML 2.0 bearer Assertion as
means for requesting an OAuth 2.0 access token.
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 June 19, 2011.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 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
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Campbell & Mortimore Expires June 19, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft OAuth SAML Bearer Assertion Profile December 2010
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. SAML Assertion Access Token Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Client Requests Access Token . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Assertion Format and Processing Requirements . . . . . . . 5
2.3. Error Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4. Example (non-normative) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Parameter Registration Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix A. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix B. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Campbell & Mortimore Expires June 19, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft OAuth SAML Bearer Assertion Profile December 2010
1. Introduction
The Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) 2.0
[OASIS.saml-core-2.0-os], is an XML-based framework that allows for
identity and security information to be shared across security
domains. The SAML specification, while primarily targeted at
providing cross domain web browser single sign-on, was also designed
to be modular and extensible to facilitate use in other contexts.
The Assertion, an XML security token, is a fundamental construct of
SAML that is often adopted for use in other protocols and
specifications. An Assertion is generally issued by an identity
provider and consumed by a service provider who relies on its content
to identify the Assertion's subject for security related purposes.
The OAuth 2.0 Protocol Framework [I-D.ietf.oauth-v2] 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. OAuth defines multiple profiles for obtaining
access tokens to support a wide range of client types and user
experiences. One such method is one in which the client trades an
'assertion' (not specifically a SAML Assertion) for an access token
using the so-called 'assertion grant_type'. However OAuth 2.0 leaves
the specific format and validation of the assertion out of scope.
This specification profiles the use of a SAML 2.0 bearer Assertion in
requesting an access token using the assertion grant_type from OAuth
2.0. The format and processing rules for the SAML Assertion defined
in this specification are intentionally similar, though not
identical, to those in the Web Browser SSO Profile defined in
[OASIS.saml-profiles-2.0-os] reusing, to the extent reasonable,
concepts and patterns from that well-established profile.
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.
2. SAML Assertion Access Token Request
A SAML Assertion can be used to request an access token when a client
wishes to utilize an existing trust relationship, expressed though
the semantics of (and digital signature calculated over) the SAML
Campbell & Mortimore Expires June 19, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft OAuth SAML Bearer Assertion Profile December 2010
Assertion, without a direct user approval step at the authorization
server.
The process by which the client obtains the SAML Assertion, prior to
exchanging it with the authorization server, is out of scope.
+--------+ +---------------+
| | | |
| |>--(A)-- SAML 2.0 Assertion ----->| Authorization |
| Client | | Server |
| |<--(B)---- Access Token ---------<| |
| | | |
+--------+ +---------------+
Figure 1: Assertion Access Token Request
The request/response flow illustrated in Figure 1 includes the
following steps:
(A) The client sends an access token request to the authorization
server with an appropriate OAuth grant_type and includes a SAML
2.0 Assertion.
(B) The authorization server validates the Assertion per the
processing rules defined in this specification and issues an
access token.
2.1. Client Requests Access Token
The client includes the Assertion in the access token request, the
core details of which are defined in OAuth [I-D.ietf.oauth-v2], by
specifying "http://oauth.net/grant_type/assertion/saml/2.0/bearer" as
the absolute URI value of the "grant_type" parameter and by adding
the following parameter:
assertion
REQUIRED. The value of the assertion parameter MUST contain a
single SAML 2.0 Assertion. The SAML Assertion XML data MUST be
encoded using base64url, where the encoding adheres to the
definition in Section 5 of RFC4648 [RFC4648] and where the
padding bits are set to zero. To to avoid the need for
subsequent encoding steps (by "application/
x-www-form-urlencoded" [W3C.REC-html401-19991224], for
example), the base64url encoded data SHOULD NOT be line wrapped
and pad characters ("=") SHOULD NOT be included.
Campbell & Mortimore Expires June 19, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft OAuth SAML Bearer Assertion Profile December 2010
Authorization servers SHOULD issue access tokens with a limited
lifetime and require clients to refresh them by requesting a new
access token using the same assertion, if it is still valid, or with
a new assertion. The authorization server SHOULD NOT issue a refresh
token.
2.2. Assertion Format and Processing Requirements
Prior to issuing an access token response as described in
[I-D.ietf.oauth-v2], the authorization server MUST validate the
Assertion according to the criteria below. If present, the
authorization server MUST also validate the client credentials.
Application of additional restrictions and policy are at the
discretion of the authorization server.
o The Assertion's <Issuer> element MUST contain a unique identifier
for the entity that issued the Assertion; the Format attribute
MUST be omitted or have a value of
"urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:nameid-format:entity".
o The Assertion MUST contain a <Subject> element. The subject MAY
identify the resource owner for whom the access token is being
requested.
o The <Subject> element MUST contain at least one
<SubjectConfirmation> element that allows the authorization server
to confirm it as a bearer Assertion. Conditions for bearer
subject confirmation are described below.
* The <SubjectConfirmation> MUST have a Method attribute with a
value of "urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:cm:bearer" and MUST
contain a <SubjectConfirmationData> element.
* The <SubjectConfirmationData> element MUST have a Recipient
attribute with a value indicating the token endpoint URL of the
authorization server. The authorization server MUST verify
that the value of the Recipient attribute matches the token
endpoint URL (or an acceptable alias) to which the Assertion
was delivered.
* The <SubjectConfirmationData> element MUST have a NotOnOrAfter
attribute that limits the window during which the Assertion can
be confirmed. The authorization server MUST verify that the
NotOnOrAfter instant has not passed, subject to allowable clock
skew between systems. The authorization server MAY ensure that
bearer Assertions are not replayed, by maintaining the set of
used ID values for the length of time for which the Assertion
would be considered valid based on the NotOnOrAfter attribute
Campbell & Mortimore Expires June 19, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft OAuth SAML Bearer Assertion Profile December 2010
in the <SubjectConfirmationData>.
* The <SubjectConfirmationData> element MAY also contain an
Address attribute limiting the client address from which the
Assertion can be delivered. Verification of the Address is at
the discretion of the authorization server.
o If the Assertion issuer authenticated the subject, the Assertion
SHOULD contain a single <AuthnStatement> representing that
authentication event.
o If the Assertion was issued with the intention that the client act
autonomously on behalf of the subject, an <AuthnStatement> SHOULD
NOT be included. The client SHOULD be identified in the <NameID>
or similar element the <SubjectConfirmation> element or by other
available means like [OASIS.saml-deleg-cs].
o Other statements, in particular, <AttributeStatement> elements MAY
be included in the Assertion.
o The Assertion MUST contain an <AudienceRestriction> element with
an <Audience> element containing a URI reference that identifies
the authorization server, or the service provider SAML entity of
its controlling domain, as an intended audience. The
authorization server MUST verify that it is an intended audience
for the Assertion.
o The Assertion MUST be digitally signed by the issuer and the
authorization server MUST verify the signature.
o Encrypted elements MAY appear in place of their plain text
counterparts as defined in [OASIS.saml-core-2.0-os].
o The authorization server MUST verify that the Assertion is valid
in all other respects per [OASIS.saml-core-2.0-os] such as (but
not limited to) evaluating all content within the Conditions
element including the NotOnOrAfter and NotBefore attributes,
rejecting unknown condition types, etc.
2.3. Error Response
If the Assertion is not valid, or its subject confirmation
requirements cannot be met, the the authorization server MUST
construct an error response as defined in [I-D.ietf.oauth-v2]. The
value of the error parameter MUST be the "invalid_grant" error code.
The authorization server MAY include additional information regarding
the reasons the Assertion was considered invalid using the
error_description or error_uri parameters.
Campbell & Mortimore Expires June 19, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft OAuth SAML Bearer Assertion Profile December 2010
For example:
HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
Content-Type: application/json
Cache-Control: no-store
{
"error":"invalid_grant",
"error_description":"Audience validation failed"
}
2.4. Example (non-normative)
Though non-normative, the following examples illustrate what a
conforming Assertion and access token request would look like.
Campbell & Mortimore Expires June 19, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft OAuth SAML Bearer Assertion Profile December 2010
Below is an example SAML 2.0 Assertion (whitespace formatting is for
display purposes only):
<Assertion IssueInstant="2010-10-01T20:07:34.619Z"
ID="ef1xsbZxPV2oqjd7HTLRLIBlBb7"
Version="2.0"
xmlns="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:assertion">
<Issuer>https://saml-idp.example.com</Issuer>
<ds:Signature xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#">
[...omitted for brevity...]
</ds:Signature>
<Subject>
<NameID
Format="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.1:nameid-format:emailAddress">
brian@example.com
</NameID>
<SubjectConfirmation
Method="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:cm:bearer">
<SubjectConfirmationData
NotOnOrAfter="2010-10-01T20:12:34.619Z"
Recipient="https://authz.example.net/token.oauth2"/>
</SubjectConfirmation>
</Subject>
<Conditions>
<AudienceRestriction>
<Audience>https://saml-sp.example.net</Audience>
</AudienceRestriction>
</Conditions>
<AuthnStatement AuthnInstant="2010-10-01T20:07:34.371Z">
<AuthnContext>
<AuthnContextClassRef>
urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:X509
</AuthnContextClassRef>
</AuthnContext>
</AuthnStatement>
</Assertion>
Figure 2: Example SAML 2.0 Assertion
Campbell & Mortimore Expires June 19, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft OAuth SAML Bearer Assertion Profile December 2010
To present the Assertion shown in the previous example as part of an
access token request, for example, the client might make the
following HTTPS request (line breaks are for display purposes only):
POST /token.oauth2 HTTP/1.1
Host: authz.example.net
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
grant_type=http%3A%2F%2Foauth.net%2Fgrant_type%2Fassertion%2F
saml%2F2.0%2Fbearer&assertion=PEFzc2VydGlvbiBJc3N1ZUluc3RhbnQ
[...omitted for brevity...]V0aG5TdGF0ZW1lbnQ-PC9Bc3NlcnRpb24-
Figure 3: Example Request
3. Security Considerations
No additional considerations beyond those described within the OAuth
2.0 Protocol Framework [I-D.ietf.oauth-v2] and in the Security and
Privacy Considerations for the OASIS Security Assertion Markup
Language (SAML) V2.0 [OASIS.saml-sec-consider-2.0-os].
4. IANA Considerations
4.1. Parameter Registration Request
The following is the parameter registration request, as defined in
The OAuth Parameters Registry of The OAuth 2.0 Protocol Framework
[I-D.ietf.oauth-v2], for the "assertion" parameter:
Parameter name: assertion
Parameter usage location: The token endpoint request.
Change controller: IETF
Specification document(s): draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer
Related information: None
Appendix A. Contributors
The following people contributed wording and concepts to this
document: Paul Madsen, Patrick Harding, Peter Motyka, Eran Hammer-
Lahav, Peter Saint-Andre, Ian Barnett, Eric Fazendin, Torsten
Campbell & Mortimore Expires June 19, 2011 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft OAuth SAML Bearer Assertion Profile December 2010
Lodderstedt, Scott Cantor and David Waite
Appendix B. Document History
[[ to be removed by RFC editor before publication as an RFC ]]
draft-campbell-oauth-saml-00
o Added Parameter Registration Request for "assertion" to IANA
Considerations.
o Changed document name to draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer in
anticipation of becoming a OAUTH WG item.
o Attempt to move the entire definition of the 'assertion' parameter
into this draft (it will no longer be defined in OAuth 2 Protocol
Framework).
draft-campbell-oauth-saml-01
o Updated to reference draft-ietf-oauth-v2-11 and reflect changes
from -10 to -11.
o Updated examples.
o Relaxed processing rules to allow for more than one
SubjectConfirmation element.
o Removed the 'MUST NOT contain a NotBefore attribute' on
SubjectConfirmationData.
o Relaxed wording that ties the subject of the Assertion to the
resource owner.
o Added some wording about identifying the client when the subject
hasn't directly authenticated including an informative reference
to SAML V2.0 Condition for Delegation Restriction.
o Added a few examples to the language about verifying that the
Assertion is valid in all other respects.
o Added some wording to the introduction about the similarities to
Web SSO in the format and processing rules
o Changed the grant_type (was assertion_type) URI from
http://oauth.net/assertion_type/saml/2.0/bearer to
http://oauth.net/grant_type/assertion/saml/2.0/bearer
Campbell & Mortimore Expires June 19, 2011 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft OAuth SAML Bearer Assertion Profile December 2010
o Changed title to include "Grant Type" in it.
o Editorial updates based on feedback from the WG and others
(including capitalization of Assertion when referring to SAML).
draft-campbell-oauth-saml-00
o Initial I-D
5. References
5.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf.oauth-v2]
Hammer-Lahav, E., Ed., Recordon, D., and D. Hardt, "The
OAuth 2.0 Protocol Framework", ID draft-ietf-oauth-v2-11,
Dec 2010.
[OASIS.saml-core-2.0-os]
Cantor, S., Kemp, J., Philpott, R., and E. Maler,
"Assertions and Protocol for the OASIS Security Assertion
Markup Language (SAML) V2.0", OASIS Standard saml-core-
2.0-os, March 2005.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4648] Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data
Encodings", RFC 4648, October 2006.
5.2. Informative References
[OASIS.saml-deleg-cs]
Cantor, S., Ed., "SAML V2.0 Condition for Delegation
Restriction", Nov 2009.
[OASIS.saml-profiles-2.0-os]
Hughes, J., Cantor, S., Hodges, J., Hirsch, F., Mishra,
P., Philpott, R., and E. Maler, "Profiles for the OASIS
Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) V2.0", OASIS
Standard OASIS.saml-profiles-2.0-os, March 2005.
[OASIS.saml-sec-consider-2.0-os]
Hirsch, F., Philpott, R., and E. Maler, "Security and
Privacy Considerations for the OASIS Security Markup
Language (SAML) V2.0", OASIS Standard saml-sec-consider-
2.0-os, March 2005.
Campbell & Mortimore Expires June 19, 2011 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft OAuth SAML Bearer Assertion Profile December 2010
[W3C.REC-html401-19991224]
Hors, A., Jacobs, I., and D. Raggett, "HTML 4.01
Specification", World Wide Web Consortium
Recommendation REC-html401-19991224, December 1999,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224>.
Authors' Addresses
Brian Campbell (editor)
Ping Identity Corp.
Email: brian.d.campbell@gmail.com
Chuck Mortimore
Salesforce.com
Email: cmortimore@salesforce.com
Campbell & Mortimore Expires June 19, 2011 [Page 12]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.123, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/