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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq

Internet Engineering Task Force                         N. Sakimura, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                 Nomura Research Institute
Intended status: Standards Track                              J. Bradley
Expires: May 10, 2013                                      Ping Identity
                                                        November 6, 2012


                  Request by JWS ver.1.0 for OAuth 2.0
                     draft-sakimura-oauth-requrl-03

Abstract

   The authorization request in OAuth 2.0 utilizes query parameter
   serizalization.  This specification defines the authorization request
   using JWT serialization.  The request is sent thorugh 'request'
   parameter or by reference through 'request_url' that points to the
   JWT, allowing the request to be optionally signed and encrypted.

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 10, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 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



Sakimura & Bradley        Expires May 10, 2013                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft             oauth-json-request              November 2012


   described in the Simplified BSD License.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   3.  Authorization Request Object  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   4.  Authorization Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   5.  Authorization Server Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   6.  IANA  Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   8.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

































Sakimura & Bradley        Expires May 10, 2013                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft             oauth-json-request              November 2012


1.  Introduction

   The parameters 'request' and 'request_url' are introduced as
   additional authorization request parameters for the OAuth 2.0
   [RFC6749] flows.  The 'request' parameter is a JSON Web Token (JWT)
   [JWT] whose body holds the JSON encoded OAuth 2.0 authorization
   request parameters.  The [JWT] can be passed to the authorization
   endpoint by reference, in which case the parameter 'request_uri' is
   used instead of the 'request'.

   Using [JWT] as the request encoding instead of query parameters has
   several advantages:

   1.  The request may be signed so that integrity check may be
       implemented.  If a suitable algorithm is used for the signing,
       then non-repudiation property may be obtained in addition.

   2.  The request may be encrypted so that end-to-end confidentiality
       may be obtained even if in the case TLS connection is terminated
       at a gateway or a similar device.

   There are a few cases that request by reference is useful such as:

   1.  When it is detected that the User Agent dose't suport long URLs -
       It is entirely possible that some extensions may extend the URL.
       For example, the client might want to send a public key with the
       request.

   2.  Static signature: The client may make a signed request file and
       put it on the client.  This may just be done by a client utility
       or other process, so that the private key does not have to reside
       on the client, simplifying programming.

   3.  When the server wants the requests to be cacheable - The
       request_uri may include a sha256 hash of the file, as defined in
       FIPS180-2 [FIPS180-2], the server knows if the file has changed
       without fetching it, so it does not have to re-fetch a same file,
       which is a win as well.

   4.  When the client wants to simplify the implementation without
       compromising the security.  If the request parameters go through
       the Browser, they may be tampered in the browser even if TLS was
       used.  This implies we need to have signature on the request as
       well.  However, if HTTPS request_url was used, it is not going to
       be tampered, thus we now do not have to sign the request.  This
       simplifies the implementation.

   This capability is in use by OpenID Connect.



Sakimura & Bradley        Expires May 10, 2013                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft             oauth-json-request              November 2012


1.1.  Requirements Language

   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

   Following parameters are defined as a request and response parameter.

   request object  A [JWT] that holds OAuth 2.0 authorization requests
      as JSON object in its body.  It MAY include all the potential
      variables including extension and non-oauth variables.  Request
      object can optionally be digitally signed or signed and encrypted.
      To sign, [JWS] is used.  To encrypt, [JWE] is used.

   request_uri  The absolute URL from which the request object is
      obtained.

   Request File  This is a physical or logical file that the
      'request_url' points to.


3.  Authorization Request Object

   The Authorization Request object is used to provide authorization
   request parameters.  It contains OAuth 2.0 authorization request
   parameters including extension parameters.  It is a JSON Web
   Signature (JWS) [JWS] signed JWT [JWT] that has the JSON object that
   holds the OAuth 2.0 authorization request parameters.  The parameters
   are included as the top level members of JSON [RFC4627].  Parameter
   names and string values are included as JSON strings.  Numerical
   values are included as JSON numbers.  It MAY include any extension
   parameters.  This JSON [RFC4627] constitues the body of the [JWT].

   The Authorization Request Object MAY be signed or unsigned
   (plaintext).  When it is plaintext, this is indicated by use of the
   "none" algorithm [JWA] in the JWS header.  If signed, the
   Authorization Request Object SHOULD contain the Claims "iss" (issuer)
   and "aud" (audience) as members, with their semantics being the same
   as defined in the JWT [JWT] specification.

   The Authorization Request Object MAY also be encrypted using JWE
   [JWE] after signing, with nesting performed in the same manner as
   specified for JWTs [JWT].  The Authorization Request Object MAY
   alternatively be sent by reference using "request_uri" parameter.




Sakimura & Bradley        Expires May 10, 2013                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft             oauth-json-request              November 2012


   OAuth 2.0 Authorization Request parameters that are not included in
   the Authorization Request Object MAY be sent as a query parameter.
   If the parameter exists both in the query string and the
   Authorization Request Object, they MUST exactly match.

   If a required parameter is not present in neither the query parameter
   or the Authorization Request Object, it forms a malformed request.

   Following is the example of the JSON which consitutes the body of the
   [JWT].
   {
       "redirect_url":"https://example.com/rp/endpoint_url",
       "cliend_id":"http://example.com/rp/"
   }

   The following is a non-normative example of a [JWT] encoded
   authorization request object.  It includes extension variables such
   as "nonce", "userinfo", and "id_token".  Note that the line wraps
   within the values are for display purpose only:

JWT algorithm = HS256
HMAC HASH Key = 'aaa'

JSON Encoded Header = "{"alg":"HS256","typ":"JWT"}"
JSON Encoded Payload = "{"response_type":"code id_token",
    "client_id":"s6BhdRkqt3",
    "redirect_uri":"https://client.example.com/cb",
    "scope":"openid profile",
    "state":"af0ifjsldkj",
    "nonce":"n-0S6_WzA2Mj",
    "userinfo":{"claims":{"name":null,"nickname":{"optional":true},
        "email":null,"verified":null,
        "picture":{"optional":true}},"format":"signed"},
    "id_token":{"max_age":86400,"iso29115":"2"}}"

JWT = eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJyZXNwb25zZV90eXBlIjoiY29kZ
    SBpZF90b2tlbiIsImNsaWVudF9pZCI6InM2QmhkUmtxdDMiLCJyZWRpcmVjdF91cmkiO
    iJodHRwczpcL1wvY2xpZW50LmV4YW1wbGUuY29tXC9jYiIsInNjb3BlIjoib3BlbmlkI
    HByb2ZpbGUiLCJzdGF0ZSI6ImFmMGlmanNsZGtqIiwidXNlcmluZm8iOnsiY2xhaW1zI
    jp7Im5hbWUiOm51bGwsIm5pY2tuYW1lIjp7Im9wdGlvbmFsIjp0cnVlfSwiZW1haWwiO
    m51bGwsInZlcmlmaWVkIjpudWxsLCJwaWN0dXJlIjp7Im9wdGlvbmFsIjp0cnVlfX0sI
    mZvcm1hdCI6InNpZ25lZCJ9LCJpZF90b2tlbiI6eyJtYXhfYWdlIjo4NjQwMCwiaXNvM
    jkxMTUiOiIyIn19.2OiqRgrbrHkA1FZ5p_7bc_RSdTbH-wo_Agk-ZRpD3wY


4.  Authorization Request

   The client constructs the request URI by adding the following



Sakimura & Bradley        Expires May 10, 2013                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft             oauth-json-request              November 2012


   parameters to the query component of the authorization endpoint URI
   using the "application/x-www-form-urlencoded" format:

   request  REQUIRED unless "request_uri" is specified.  The
      authorization request object (Section 3) that holds authorization
      request parameters stated in the section 4 of OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749].

   request_uri  REQUIRED unless "request" is specified.  The absolute
      URL that points to the authorization request object (Section 3)
      that holds authorization request parameters stated in the section
      4 of OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749].  When sending the request by
      "request_uri", the client MAY provide the sha256 hash as defined
      in FIPS180-2 [FIPS180-2]of the Request File as the fragment to it
      to assist the cache utilization decision of the Authorization
      Server.

   state  RECOMMENDED.  An opaque value used by the client to maintain
      state between the request and callback.  The authorization server
      includes this value when redirecting the user-agent back to the
      client.  The parameter SHOULD be used for preventing cross-site
      request forgery as described in Section 10.12. of OAuth 2.0
      [RFC6749]

   The client directs the resource owner to the constructed URI using an
   HTTP redirection response, or by other means available to it via the
   user-agent.

   For example, the client directs the end-user's user-agent to make the
   following HTTPS request (line breaks are for display purposes only):
GET /authorize?request_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fclient%2Eexample%2Ecom%2Fcb HTTP/1.1
Host: server.example.com

   The autorization request object MAY be signed AND/OR encrypted.

   Upon receipt of "request_uri" in the request, the authorization
   server MUST send a GET request to the "request_uri" to retrieve the
   authorization request object unless it is already cached at the
   Authorization Server.

   If the response was signed AND/OR encrypted, it has to be decoded
   accordingly before being processed.

   Then, the Authorization Server MUST reconstruct the complete client
   request from the original HTTP request and the content of the request
   object.  Then, the process continues as described in Section 3 of
   OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749] .





Sakimura & Bradley        Expires May 10, 2013                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft             oauth-json-request              November 2012


5.  Authorization Server Response

   Authorization Server Response is created and sent to the client as in
   Section 4 of OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749] .

   In addition, this document defines additional 'error' values as
   follows:

   o  "invalid_request_uri" - The provided request_uri was not
      available.

   o  "invalid_request_format" - The Request Object format was invalid.

   o  "invalid_request_params" - The parameter set provided in the
      Request Object was invalid.


6.  IANA  Considerations

   This document registers following error strings to the OAuth Error
   Registry.

   o  "invalid_request_uri" - The provided request_uri was not
      available.

   o  "invalid_request_format" - The Request Object format was invalid.

   o  "invalid_request_params" - The parameter set provided in the
      Request Object was invalid.


7.  Security Considerations

   In addition to the all the security considerations discussed in OAuth
   2.0 [RFC6749], the following security considerations SHOULD be taken
   into account.

   When sending the authorization request object through "request"
   parameter, it SHOULD be signed with [JWS].

   When obtaining the Request FIle, the Authorization Server SHOULD use
   either HTTP over TLS 1.2 as defined in RFC5246 [RFC5246] AND/OR
   [JWS].

   If the request object contains personally identifiable or sensitive
   information, the "request_uri" MUST be of one-time use and MUST have
   large enough entropy deemed necessary with applicable security
   policy.  For higher security requirement, using [JWE] is strongly



Sakimura & Bradley        Expires May 10, 2013                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft             oauth-json-request              November 2012


   recommended.

   [[ToDo]]


8.  Acknowledgements

   Following people contributed to creating this document through the
   OpenID Connect 1.0 [openid_ab] .

   Breno de Medeiros (Google), Hideki Nara (TACT), John Bradley (Ping
   Identity) <author>, Nat Sakimura (NRI) <author/editor>, Ryo Itou
   (Yahoo!  Japan), George Fletcher (AOL), Justin Richer (Mitre), Edmund
   Jay (MGI1), (add yourself).

   In addition following people contributed to this and previous
   versions through The OAuth Working Group.

   David Recordon (Facebook), Luke Shepard (Facebook), James H. Manger
   (Telstra), Marius Scurtescu (Google), John Panzer (Google), Dirk
   Balfanz (Google), (add yourself).


9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [FIPS180-2]
              U.S. Department of Commerce and National Institute of
              Standards and Technology, "Secure Hash Signature
              Standard", FIPS 180-2, August 2002.

              Defines Secure Hash Algorithm 256 (SHA256)

   [JWA]      Jones, M., "JSON Web Algorithms (JWA)", March 2011.

   [JWE]      Jones, M., "JSON Web Encryption (JWE)", March 2011.

   [JWS]      Jones, M., Balfanz, D., Bradley, J., Goland, Y., Panzer,
              J., Sakimura, N., and P. Tarjan, "JSON Web Signature
              (JWS)", April 2011.

   [JWT]      Jones, M., Balfanz, D., Bradley, J., Goland, Y., Panzer,
              J., Sakimura, N., and P. Tarjan, "JSON Web Token",
              July 2011.

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



Sakimura & Bradley        Expires May 10, 2013                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft             oauth-json-request              November 2012


   [RFC4627]  Crockford, D., "The application/json Media Type for
              JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)", RFC 4627, July 2006.

   [RFC5246]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.

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

9.2.  Informative References

   [openid_ab]
              openid-specs-ab@openid.net, "OpenID Connect 1.0",
              October 2011.


Authors' Addresses

   Nat Sakimura (editor)
   Nomura Research Institute
   1-6-5 Marunouchi, Marunouchi Kitaguchi Bldg.
   Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo  100-0005
   Japan

   Phone: +81-3-5533-2111
   Email: n-sakimura@nri.co.jp


   John Bradley
   Ping Identity

   Email: ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com



















Sakimura & Bradley        Expires May 10, 2013                  [Page 9]


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