draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-01.txt   draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-02.txt 
ACE Working Group E. Wahlstroem ACE Working Group M. Jones
Internet-Draft Internet-Draft Microsoft
Intended status: Informational M. Jones Intended status: Informational E. Wahlstroem
Expires: January 8, 2017 Microsoft Expires: July 17, 2017
H. Tschofenig
ARM Ltd.
S. Erdtman S. Erdtman
Spotify AB Spotify AB
July 7, 2016 H. Tschofenig
ARM Ltd.
January 13, 2017
CBOR Web Token (CWT) CBOR Web Token (CWT)
draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-01 draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-02
Abstract Abstract
CBOR Web Token (CWT) is a compact means of representing claims to be CBOR Web Token (CWT) is a compact means of representing claims to be
transferred between two parties. CWT is a profile of the JSON Web transferred between two parties. CWT is a profile of the JSON Web
Token (JWT) that is optimized for constrained devices. The claims in Token (JWT) that is optimized for constrained devices. The claims in
a CWT are encoded in the Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) a CWT are encoded in the Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)
and CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) is used for added and CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) is used for added
application layer security protection. A claim is a piece of application layer security protection. A claim is a piece of
information asserted about a subject and is represented as a name/ information asserted about a subject and is represented as a name/
skipping to change at page 1, line 42 skipping to change at page 1, line 42
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 8, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on July 17, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
skipping to change at page 2, line 38 skipping to change at page 2, line 38
4. Summary of the values, CBOR major types and encoded claim 4. Summary of the values, CBOR major types and encoded claim
keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Creating and Validating CWTs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Creating and Validating CWTs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Creating a CWT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.1. Creating a CWT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. Validating a CWT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.2. Validating a CWT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.1. CBOR Web Token (CWT) Claims Registry . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.1. CBOR Web Token (CWT) Claims Registry . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.1.1. Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.1.1. Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.1.2. Initial Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.1.2. Initial Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.2. CoAP Content-Format Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7.2. Media Type Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.2.1. Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7.2.1. Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.3. CoAP Content-Formats Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.3.1. Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix A. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Appendix A. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
A.1. CWT with "aud" and symmetric key . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 A.1. CWT with "aud" and symmetric key . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
A.2. CWT with "aud" and EC key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 A.2. CWT with "aud" and EC key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.3. Full CWT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 A.3. Full CWT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendix B. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Appendix B. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Appendix C. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Appendix C. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The JSON Web Token (JWT) [RFC7519] is a standardized security token The JSON Web Token (JWT) [RFC7519] is a standardized security token
format that has found use in OAuth 2.0 and OpenID Connect format that has found use in OAuth 2.0 and OpenID Connect
deployments, among other applications. JWT uses JSON Web Signatures deployments, among other applications. JWT uses JSON Web Signatures
(JWS) [RFC7515] and JSON Web Encryption (JWE) [RFC7516] to secure the (JWS) [RFC7515] and JSON Web Encryption (JWE) [RFC7516] to secure the
contents of the JWT, which is a set of claims represented in JSON contents of the JWT, which is a set of claims represented in JSON
[RFC7519]. The use of JSON for encoding information is popular for [RFC7519]. The use of JSON for encoding information is popular for
Web and native applications, but it is considered inefficient for Web and native applications, but it is considered inefficient for
skipping to change at page 4, line 7 skipping to change at page 4, line 7
Type6NumericDate: Type6NumericDate:
The "Type6NumericDate" term has the same meaning, syntax, and The "Type6NumericDate" term has the same meaning, syntax, and
processing rules as the "NumericDate" term defined in Section 2 of processing rules as the "NumericDate" term defined in Section 2 of
JWT [RFC7519], except that Type6NumericDate uses CBOR major type JWT [RFC7519], except that Type6NumericDate uses CBOR major type
6, with tag value 1, instead of a numeric JSON value. 6, with tag value 1, instead of a numeric JSON value.
CBOR encoded claim key: CBOR encoded claim key:
The key used to identify a claim value. The key used to identify a claim value.
CWT Claims Set
A CBOR map that contains the claims conveyed by the CWT.
3. Claims 3. Claims
The set of claims that a CWT must contain to be considered valid is The set of claims that a CWT must contain to be considered valid is
context dependent and is outside the scope of this specification. context dependent and is outside the scope of this specification.
Specific applications of CWTs will require implementations to Specific applications of CWTs will require implementations to
understand and process some claims in particular ways. However, in understand and process some claims in particular ways. However, in
the absence of such requirements, all claims that are not understood the absence of such requirements, all claims that are not understood
by implementations MUST be ignored. by implementations MUST be ignored.
To keep CWTs as small as possible, the CBOR encoded claim keys are To keep CWTs as small as possible, the CBOR encoded claim keys are
represented using CBOR major type 0. Section 4 summaries all keys represented using CBOR major type 0. Section 4 summarizes all keys
used to identity the claims defined in this document. used to identify the claims defined in this document.
3.1. Claim Names 3.1. Claim Names
None of the claims defined below are intended to be mandatory to use None of the claims defined below are intended to be mandatory to use
or implement. They rather provide a starting point for a set of or implement. They rather provide a starting point for a set of
useful, interoperable claims. Applications using CWTs should define useful, interoperable claims. Applications using CWTs should define
which specific claims they use and when they are required or which specific claims they use and when they are required or
optional. optional.
3.1.1. iss (Issuer) Claim 3.1.1. iss (Issuer) Claim
skipping to change at page 6, line 19 skipping to change at page 6, line 19
To create a CWT, the following steps are performed. The order of the To create a CWT, the following steps are performed. The order of the
steps is not significant in cases where there are no dependencies steps is not significant in cases where there are no dependencies
between the inputs and outputs of the steps. between the inputs and outputs of the steps.
1. Create a CWT Claims Set containing the desired claims. 1. Create a CWT Claims Set containing the desired claims.
2. Let the Message be the binary representation of the CWT Claims 2. Let the Message be the binary representation of the CWT Claims
Set. Set.
3. Create a COSE Header containing the desired set of Header 3. Create a COSE Header containing the desired set of Header
Parameters. The CWT Header MUST be a valid according to the Parameters. The COSE Header MUST be valid according to the
[I-D.ietf-cose-msg] specification. [I-D.ietf-cose-msg] specification.
4. Depending upon whether the CWT is signed, MACed or encrypted, 4. Depending upon whether the CWT is signed, MACed or encrypted,
there are three cases: there are three cases:
* If the CWT is signed, create a COSE_Sign/COSE_Sign1 object * If the CWT is signed, create a COSE_Sign/COSE_Sign1 object
using the Message as the COSE_Sign/COSE_Sign1 Payload; all using the Message as the COSE_Sign/COSE_Sign1 Payload; all
steps specified in [I-D.ietf-cose-msg] for creating a steps specified in [I-D.ietf-cose-msg] for creating a
COSE_Sign/COSE_Sign1 object MUST be followed. COSE_Sign/COSE_Sign1 object MUST be followed.
skipping to change at page 6, line 44 skipping to change at page 6, line 44
* Else, if the CWT is a COSE_Encrypt/COSE_Encrypt0 object, * Else, if the CWT is a COSE_Encrypt/COSE_Encrypt0 object,
create a COSE_Encrypt/COSE_Encrypt0 using the Message as the create a COSE_Encrypt/COSE_Encrypt0 using the Message as the
plaintext for the COSE_Encrypt/COSE_Encrypt0 object; all steps plaintext for the COSE_Encrypt/COSE_Encrypt0 object; all steps
specified in [I-D.ietf-cose-msg] for creating a COSE_Encrypt/ specified in [I-D.ietf-cose-msg] for creating a COSE_Encrypt/
COSE_Encrypt0 object MUST be followed. COSE_Encrypt0 object MUST be followed.
5. If a nested signing, MACing or encryption operation will be 5. If a nested signing, MACing or encryption operation will be
performed, let the Message be the COSE_Sign/COSE_Sign1, COSE_Mac/ performed, let the Message be the COSE_Sign/COSE_Sign1, COSE_Mac/
COSE_Mac0 or COSE_Encrypt/COSE_Encrypt0, and return to Step 3, COSE_Mac0 or COSE_Encrypt/COSE_Encrypt0, and return to Step 3,
using "content type" header value of "CWT" in the new COSE Header using a "content type" header value corresponding to the media
created in that step. type "application/cwt" in the new COSE Header created in that
step.
Note: If integrity (signing/MACing) and confidentiality Note: If integrity (signing/MACing) and confidentiality
(encryption) protection are needed, it is recommended to use an (encryption) protection are needed, it is recommended to use an
authenticated encryption algorithm to save space and processing. authenticated encryption algorithm to save space and processing.
5.2. Validating a CWT 5.2. Validating a CWT
When validating a CWT, the following steps are performed. The order When validating a CWT, the following steps are performed. The order
of the steps is not significant in cases where there are no of the steps is not significant in cases where there are no
dependencies between the inputs and outputs of the steps. If any of dependencies between the inputs and outputs of the steps. If any of
the listed steps fail, then the CWT MUST be rejected -- that is, the listed steps fail, then the CWT MUST be rejected -- that is,
treated by the application as an invalid input. treated by the application as an invalid input.
1. Verify that the CWT is a valid CBOR object. 1. Verify that the CWT is a valid CBOR object.
2. Verify that the resulting COSE Header includes only parameters 2. Verify that the resulting COSE Header includes only parameters
and values whose syntax and semantics are both understood and and values whose syntax and semantics are both understood and
supported or that are specified as being ignored when not supported or that are specified as being ignored when not
understood. understood.
3. Use the CBOR tag to determine the type the CWT, COSE_Sign/ 3. Use the CBOR tag to determine the type of the CWT, COSE_Sign/
COSE_Sign1, COSE_Mac/COSE_Mac0 or COSE_Encrypt/COSE_Encrypt0. COSE_Sign1, COSE_Mac/COSE_Mac0, or COSE_Encrypt/COSE_Encrypt0.
4. Depending upon whether the CWT is a COSE_Sign/COSE_Sign1, 4. Depending upon whether the CWT is a COSE_Sign/COSE_Sign1,
COSE_Mac/COSE_Mac0 or COSE_Encrypt/COSE_Encrypt0, there are three COSE_Mac/COSE_Mac0 or COSE_Encrypt/COSE_Encrypt0, there are three
cases: cases:
* If the CWT is a COSE_Sign/COSE_Sign1, follow the steps * If the CWT is a COSE_Sign/COSE_Sign1, follow the steps
specified in [I-D.ietf-cose-msg] Section 4 (Signing Objects) specified in [I-D.ietf-cose-msg] Section 4 (Signing Objects)
for validating a COSE_Sign/COSE_Sign1 object. Let the Message for validating a COSE_Sign/COSE_Sign1 object. Let the Message
be the COSE_Sign/COSE_Sign1 payload. be the COSE_Sign/COSE_Sign1 payload.
skipping to change at page 7, line 43 skipping to change at page 7, line 43
specified in [I-D.ietf-cose-msg] Section 6 (MAC Objects) for specified in [I-D.ietf-cose-msg] Section 6 (MAC Objects) for
validating a COSE_Mac/COSE_Mac0 object. Let the Message be validating a COSE_Mac/COSE_Mac0 object. Let the Message be
the COSE_Mac/COSE_Mac0 payload. the COSE_Mac/COSE_Mac0 payload.
* Else, if the CWT is a COSE_Encrypt/COSE_Encrypt0 object, * Else, if the CWT is a COSE_Encrypt/COSE_Encrypt0 object,
follow the steps specified in [I-D.ietf-cose-msg] Section 5 follow the steps specified in [I-D.ietf-cose-msg] Section 5
(Encryption Objects) for validating a COSE_Encrypt/ (Encryption Objects) for validating a COSE_Encrypt/
COSE_Encrypt0 object. Let the Message be the resulting COSE_Encrypt0 object. Let the Message be the resulting
plaintext. plaintext.
5. If the JOSE Header contains a "content type" value of "CWT", then 5. If the COSE Header contains a "content type" header value
the Message is a CWT that was the subject of nested signing or corresponding to the media type "application/cwt", then the
Message is a CWT that was the subject of nested signing or
encryption operations. In this case, return to Step 1, using the encryption operations. In this case, return to Step 1, using the
Message as the CWT. Message as the CWT.
6. Verify that the Message is a valid CBOR object; let the CWT 6. Verify that the Message is a valid CBOR object; let the CWT
Claims Set be this CBOR object. Claims Set be this CBOR object.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
The security of the CWT is dependent on the protection offered by The security of the CWT is dependent on the protection offered by
COSE. Without protecting the claims contained in a CWT an adversary COSE. Without protecting the claims contained in a CWT an adversary
skipping to change at page 9, line 10 skipping to change at page 9, line 10
[IANA.JWT.Claims]. CWT claims should normally have a [IANA.JWT.Claims]. CWT claims should normally have a
corresponding JWT claim. If a corresponding JWT claim would not corresponding JWT claim. If a corresponding JWT claim would not
make sense, the Designated Experts can choose to accept make sense, the Designated Experts can choose to accept
registrations for which the JWT Claim Name is listed as "N/A". registrations for which the JWT Claim Name is listed as "N/A".
CBOR Key Value: CBOR Key Value:
Key value for the claim. The key value MUST be an integer in the Key value for the claim. The key value MUST be an integer in the
range of 1 to 65536. range of 1 to 65536.
CBOR Major Type: CBOR Major Type:
CBOR Major type and optional tag for the claim. CBOR major type and optional tag for the claim.
Change Controller: Change Controller:
For Standards Track RFCs, list the "IESG". For others, give the For Standards Track RFCs, list the "IESG". For others, give the
name of the responsible party. Other details (e.g., postal name of the responsible party. Other details (e.g., postal
address, email address, home page URI) may also be included. address, email address, home page URI) may also be included.
Specification Document(s): Specification Document(s):
Reference to the document or documents that specify the parameter, Reference to the document or documents that specify the parameter,
preferably including URIs that can be used to retrieve copies of preferably including URIs that can be used to retrieve copies of
the documents. An indication of the relevant sections may also be the documents. An indication of the relevant sections may also be
skipping to change at page 10, line 39 skipping to change at page 10, line 39
o Claim Name: "cti" o Claim Name: "cti"
o Claim Description: CWT ID o Claim Description: CWT ID
o JWT Claim Name: "jti" o JWT Claim Name: "jti"
o CBOR Key Value: 7 o CBOR Key Value: 7
o CBOR Major Type: 2 o CBOR Major Type: 2
o Change Controller: IESG o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): Section 3.1.7 of [[ this specification o Specification Document(s): Section 3.1.7 of [[ this specification
]] ]]
7.2. CoAP Content-Format Registration 7.2. Media Type Registration
This section registers the "application/cwt" CoAP Content-Format ID This section registers the "application/cwt" media type [RFC2046] in
in the "CoRE Parameters" sub-registry "CoAP Content-Format" in the the "Media Types" registry [IANA.MediaTypes] in the manner described
manner described in [RFC7252]. in RFC 6838 [RFC6838], which can be used to indicate that the content
is a CWT.
7.2.1. Registry Contents 7.2.1. Registry Contents
o Type name: application
o Subtype name: cwt
o Required parameters: N/A
o Optional parameters: N/A
o Encoding considerations: binary
o Security considerations: See the Security Considerations section
of [[ this specification ]]
o Interoperability considerations: N/A
o Published specification: [[ this specification ]]
o Applications that use this media type: IoT applications sending
security tokens over HTTP(S) and other transports.
o Fragment identifier considerations: N/A
o Additional information:
Magic number(s): N/A
File extension(s): N/A
Macintosh file type code(s): N/A
o Person & email address to contact for further information:
IESG, iesg@ietf.org
o Intended usage: COMMON
o Restrictions on usage: none
o Author: Michael B. Jones, mbj@microsoft.com
o Change controller: IESG
o Provisional registration? No
7.3. CoAP Content-Formats Registration
This section registers the CoAP Content-Format ID for the
"application/cwt" media type in the "CoAP Content-Formats" registry
[IANA.CoAP.Content-Formats] established by [RFC7252].
7.3.1. Registry Contents
o Media Type: application/cwt o Media Type: application/cwt
o Encoding: - o Encoding: -
o Id: TBD (maybe 61) o Id: TBD (maybe 61)
o Reference: [[ this specification ]] o Reference: [[ this specification ]]
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-cose-msg] [I-D.ietf-cose-msg]
Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)", Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)",
draft-ietf-cose-msg-14 (work in progress), June 2016. draft-ietf-cose-msg-24 (work in progress), November 2016.
[IANA.CoAP.Content-Formats]
IANA, "CoAP Content-Formats",
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/core-parameters/
core-parameters.xhtml#content-formats>.
[IANA.JWT.Claims] [IANA.JWT.Claims]
IANA, "JSON Web Token Claims", IANA, "JSON Web Token Claims",
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/jwt>. <http://www.iana.org/assignments/jwt>.
[IANA.MediaTypes]
IANA, "Media Types",
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types>.
[RFC2046] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2046, November 1996,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2046>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC6838] Freed, N., Klensin, J., and T. Hansen, "Media Type
Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13,
RFC 6838, DOI 10.17487/RFC6838, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6838>.
[RFC7049] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object [RFC7049] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
Representation (CBOR)", RFC 7049, DOI 10.17487/RFC7049, Representation (CBOR)", RFC 7049, DOI 10.17487/RFC7049,
October 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7049>. October 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7049>.
[RFC7159] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data [RFC7159] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
Interchange Format", RFC 7159, DOI 10.17487/RFC7159, March Interchange Format", RFC 7159, DOI 10.17487/RFC7159, March
2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7159>. 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7159>.
[RFC7252] Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained [RFC7252] Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252, Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,
skipping to change at page 19, line 9 skipping to change at page 20, line 9
This specification is based on JSON Web Token (JWT) [RFC7519], the This specification is based on JSON Web Token (JWT) [RFC7519], the
authors of which also include Nat Sakimura and John Bradley. A straw authors of which also include Nat Sakimura and John Bradley. A straw
man proposal of CWT was written in the draft "Authorization for the man proposal of CWT was written in the draft "Authorization for the
Internet of Things using OAuth 2.0" [I-D.seitz-ace-oauth-authz] with Internet of Things using OAuth 2.0" [I-D.seitz-ace-oauth-authz] with
the help of Ludwig Seitz and Goeran Selander. the help of Ludwig Seitz and Goeran Selander.
Appendix C. Document History Appendix C. Document History
[[ to be removed by the RFC Editor before publication as an RFC ]] [[ to be removed by the RFC Editor before publication as an RFC ]]
-02
o Added IANA registration for the application/cwt media type.
o Clarified the nested CWT language.
o Corrected nits identified by Ludwig Seitz.
-01 -01
o Added IANA registration for CWT Claims. o Added IANA registration for CWT Claims.
o Added IANA registration for the application/cwt CoAP content- o Added IANA registration for the application/cwt CoAP content-
format type. format type.
o Added Samuel Erdtman as an editor. o Added Samuel Erdtman as an editor.
o Changed Erik's e-mail address. o Changed Erik's e-mail address.
-00 -00
o Created the initial working group version based on draft- o Created the initial working group version based on draft-
wahlstroem-ace-cbor-web-token-00. wahlstroem-ace-cbor-web-token-00.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Erik Wahlstroem
Sweden
Email: erik@wahlstromstekniska.se
Michael B. Jones Michael B. Jones
Microsoft Microsoft
Email: mbj@microsoft.com Email: mbj@microsoft.com
URI: http://self-issued.info/ URI: http://self-issued.info/
Hannes Tschofenig Erik Wahlstroem
ARM Ltd. Sweden
Hall in Tirol 6060
Austria
Email: Hannes.Tschofenig@arm.com Email: erik@wahlstromstekniska.se
Samuel Erdtman Samuel Erdtman
Spotify AB Spotify AB
Birger Jarlsgatan 61, 4tr Birger Jarlsgatan 61, 4tr
Stockholm 113 56 Stockholm 113 56
Sweden Sweden
Phone: +46702691499 Phone: +46702691499
Email: erdtman@spotify.com Email: erdtman@spotify.com
Hannes Tschofenig
ARM Ltd.
Hall in Tirol 6060
Austria
Email: Hannes.Tschofenig@arm.com
 End of changes. 26 change blocks. 
44 lines changed or deleted 104 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/