draft-ietf-ace-oauth-params-05.txt   draft-ietf-ace-oauth-params-06.txt 
ACE Working Group L. Seitz ACE Working Group L. Seitz
Internet-Draft RISE Internet-Draft RISE
Intended status: Standards Track March 25, 2019 Intended status: Standards Track November 17, 2019
Expires: September 26, 2019 Expires: May 20, 2020
Additional OAuth Parameters for Authorization in Constrained Additional OAuth Parameters for Authorization in Constrained
Environments (ACE) Environments (ACE)
draft-ietf-ace-oauth-params-05 draft-ietf-ace-oauth-params-06
Abstract Abstract
This specification defines new parameters for the OAuth 2.0 token and This specification defines new parameters for the OAuth 2.0 token and
introspection endpoints when used with the framework for introspection endpoints when used with the framework for
authentication and authorization for constrained environments (ACE). authentication and authorization for constrained environments (ACE).
These are used to express the proof-of-possession key the client These are used to express the proof-of-possession key the client
whishes to use, the proof-of-possession key that the AS has selected, whishes to use, the proof-of-possession key that the AS has selected,
and the key the RS should use to authenticate to the client. and the key the RS should use to authenticate to the client.
skipping to change at page 1, line 36 skipping to change at page 1, line 36
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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://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 September 26, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 20, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 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
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://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
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Parameters for the Token Endpoint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Parameters for the Token Endpoint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Client-to-AS Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1. Client-to-AS Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. AS-to-Client Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2. AS-to-Client Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. The Resource Server Confirmation Claim . . . . . . . . . 6 3.3. The Resource Server Confirmation Claim . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Parameters for the Introspection Endpoint . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Parameters for the Introspection Endpoint . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. AS-to-RS Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1. AS-to-RS Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Confirmation Method Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Confirmation Method Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. CBOR Mappings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. CBOR Mappings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.1. JSON Web Token Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9.1. JSON Web Token Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.2. CBOR Web Token Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9.2. CBOR Web Token Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.3. OAuth Parameter Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9.3. OAuth Parameter Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.4. OAuth Introspection Response Parameter Registration . . . 10 9.4. OAuth Introspection Response Parameter Registration . . . 10
9.5. Token Endpoint CBOR Mappings Registraton . . . . . . . . 10 9.5. OAuth Parameters CBOR Mappings Registraton . . . . . . . 10
9.6. Introspection Endpoint CBOR Mappings Registraton . . . . 10 9.6. OAuth Token Introspection Response CBOR Mappings
Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix A. Overlap with OAuth work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Appendix A. Overlap with OAuth work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments The Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments
(ACE) specification [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz] requires some new (ACE) specification [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz] requires some new
parameters for interactions with the OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749] token and parameters for interactions with the OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749] token and
introspection endpoints, as well as some new claims to be used in introspection endpoints, as well as some new claims to be used in
access tokens. These parameters and claims can also be used in other access tokens. These parameters and claims can also be used in other
contexts, and may need to be updated to align them with ongoing OAuth contexts, and may need to be updated to align them with ongoing OAuth
work. Therefore they have been split out into this document, which work. Therefore, these parameters and claims have been put into a
can be used and updated independently of [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz]. dedicated document, to facilitate their use and any potential updates
in a manner independent of [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz].
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
Readers are assumed to be familiar with the terminology from Readers are assumed to be familiar with the terminology from
skipping to change at page 3, line 30 skipping to change at page 3, line 36
This document defines the following additional parameters for This document defines the following additional parameters for
requesting an access token from a token endpoint in the ACE framework requesting an access token from a token endpoint in the ACE framework
[I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz]: [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz]:
req_cnf req_cnf
OPTIONAL. This field contains information about the key the OPTIONAL. This field contains information about the key the
client would like to bind to the access token for proof-of- client would like to bind to the access token for proof-of-
possession. It is RECOMMENDED that an AS reject a request possession. It is RECOMMENDED that an AS reject a request
containing a symmetric key value in the 'req_cnf' field, since the containing a symmetric key value in the 'req_cnf' field, since the
AS is expected to be able to generate better symmetric keys than a AS is expected to be able to generate better symmetric keys than a
potentially constrained client. The AS MUST verify that the constrained client. The AS MUST verify that the client really is
client really is in possession of the corresponding key. Values in possession of the corresponding key. Values of this parameter
of this parameter follow the syntax of the "cnf" claim from follow the syntax of the "cnf" claim from section 3.1 of
section 3.1 of [I-D.ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession]. [I-D.ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession].
Figure 1 shows a request for an access token using the "req_cnf" Figure 1 shows a request for an access token using the "req_cnf"
parameter to request a specific public key as proof-of-possession parameter to request a specific public key as proof-of-possession
key. The content is displayed in CBOR diagnostic notation, without key. The content is displayed in CBOR diagnostic notation, without
abbreviations for better readability. abbreviations for better readability.
Header: POST (Code=0.02) Header: POST (Code=0.02)
Uri-Host: "as.example.com" Uri-Host: "as.example.com"
Uri-Path: "token" Uri-Path: "token"
Content-Format: "application/ace+cbor" Content-Format: "application/ace+cbor"
skipping to change at page 4, line 36 skipping to change at page 4, line 36
This document defines the following additional parameters for an AS This document defines the following additional parameters for an AS
response to a request to the token endpoint: response to a request to the token endpoint:
cnf cnf
REQUIRED if the token type is "pop" and a symmetric key is used. REQUIRED if the token type is "pop" and a symmetric key is used.
MAY be present for asymmetric proof-of-possession keys. This MAY be present for asymmetric proof-of-possession keys. This
field contains the proof-of-possession key that the AS selected field contains the proof-of-possession key that the AS selected
for the token. Values of this parameter follow the syntax of the for the token. Values of this parameter follow the syntax of the
"cnf" claim from section 3.1 of "cnf" claim from section 3.1 of
[I-D.ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession]. See Section 5 for details [I-D.ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession]. See Section 5 for
on the use of this parameter. additional discussion of the usage of this parameter.
rs_cnf rs_cnf
OPTIONAL if the token type is "pop" and asymmetric keys are used. OPTIONAL if the token type is "pop" and asymmetric keys are used.
MUST NOT be present otherwise. This field contains information MUST NOT be present otherwise. This field contains information
about the public key used by the RS to authenticate. If this about the public key used by the RS to authenticate. If this
parameter is absent, either the RS does not use a public key or parameter is absent, either the RS does not use a public key or
the AS assumes that the client already knows the public key of the the AS knows that the RS can authenticate itself to the client
RS. Values of this parameter follow the syntax of the "cnf" claim without additional information. Values of this parameter follow
from section 3.1 of [I-D.ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession]. See the syntax of the "cnf" claim from section 3.1 of
Section 5 for details on the use of this parameter. [I-D.ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession]. See Section 5 for
additional discussion of the usage of this parameter.
Figure 2 shows an AS response containing a token and a "cnf" Figure 2 shows an AS response containing a token and a "cnf"
parameter with a symmetric proof-of-possession key. parameter with a symmetric proof-of-possession key.
Header: Created (Code=2.01) Header: Created (Code=2.01)
Content-Format: "application/ace+cbor" Content-Format: "application/ace+cbor"
Payload: Payload:
{ {
"access_token" : b64'SlAV32hkKG ... "access_token" : b64'SlAV32hkKG ...
(remainder of CWT omitted for brevity; (remainder of CWT omitted for brevity;
skipping to change at page 5, line 32 skipping to change at page 5, line 32
symmetric key. symmetric key.
Figure 3 shows an AS response containing a token bound to a Figure 3 shows an AS response containing a token bound to a
previously requested asymmetric proof-of-possession key (not shown) previously requested asymmetric proof-of-possession key (not shown)
and a "rs_cnf" parameter containing the public key of the RS. and a "rs_cnf" parameter containing the public key of the RS.
Header: Created (Code=2.01) Header: Created (Code=2.01)
Content-Format: "application/ace+cbor" Content-Format: "application/ace+cbor"
Payload: Payload:
{ {
"access_token" : b64'SlAV32hkKG ... "access_token" : b64'0INDoQEKoQVNKkXfb7xaWqMTf6 ...
(remainder of CWT omitted for brevity; (remainder of CWT omitted for brevity;
CWT contains COSE_Key in the "cnf" claim)', CWT contains COSE_Key in the "cnf" claim)',
"rs_cnf" : { "rs_cnf" : {
"COSE_Key" : { "COSE_Key" : {
"kty" : "EC", "kty" : "EC",
"kid" : h'12', "kid" : h'12',
"crv" : "P-256", "crv" : "P-256",
"x" : b64'vO5+qsFi+R5vMw9XcSEeIguLVGyWWJsKxK0P0kx34fE', "x" : b64'vO5+qsFi+R5vMw9XcSEeIguLVGyWWJsKxK0P0kx34fE',
"y" : b64'xkezjFXvu8TmLmUXIPAC1ddbLgwCzRMm5mK8oiK5BBY' "y" : b64'xkezjFXvu8TmLmUXIPAC1ddbLgwCzRMm5mK8oiK5BBY'
} }
} }
} }
Figure 3: Example AS response with an access token bound to a Figure 3: Example AS response, including the RS's public key.
symmetric key.
3.3. The Resource Server Confirmation Claim 3.3. The Resource Server Confirmation Claim
If the AS needs to convey a hint to the RS about which key it should If the AS needs to convey a hint to the RS about which key it should
use to authenticate towards the client, this specification defines use to authenticate towards the client, this specification defines
the "rs_cnf" claim, which MAY be used in the access token, with the the "rs_cnf" claim, which MAY be used in the access token, with the
same syntax and semantics as defined in for the "rs_cnf" parameter. same syntax and semantics as defined in for the "rs_cnf" parameter.
4. Parameters for the Introspection Endpoint 4. Parameters for the Introspection Endpoint
4.1. AS-to-RS Response 4.1. AS-to-RS Response
This document defines the following additional parameters for an AS This document defines the following additional parameters for an AS
response to a request to the introspection endpoint: response to a request to the introspection endpoint:
cnf cnf
OPTIONAL. This field contains information about the proof-of- OPTIONAL. This field contains information about the proof-of-
possession key that binds the client to the access token. Values possession key that binds the client to the access token. Values
of this parameter follow the syntax of the "cnf" claim from of this parameter follow the syntax of the "cnf" claim from
section 3.1 of [I-D.ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession]. See section 3.1 of [I-D.ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession]. See
Section 5 for more details on the use of the "cnf" parameter. Section 5 for additional discussion of the usage of this
parameter.
rs_cnf rs_cnf
OPTIONAL. If the RS uses asymmetric keys to authenticate towards OPTIONAL. If the RS uses asymmetric keys to authenticate towards
the client (e.g. with a DTLS-RPK handshake) and it has several the client (e.g. with a DTLS-RPK handshake) and it has several
such keys (e.g. for different elliptic curves), the AS can give such keys (e.g. for different elliptic curves), the AS can give
the RS a hint using this parameter, as to which key it should use. the RS a hint using this parameter, as to which key it should use.
Values of this parameter follow the syntax of the "cnf" claim from Values of this parameter follow the syntax of the "cnf" claim from
section 3.1 of [I-D.ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession]. See section 3.1 of [I-D.ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession]. See
Section 5 for details on the use of this parameter. Section 5 for additional discussion of the usage of this
parameter.
Figure 4 shows an AS response to an introspection request including Figure 4 shows an AS response to an introspection request including
the "cnf" parameter to indicate the proof-of-possession key bound to the "cnf" parameter to indicate the proof-of-possession key bound to
the token and the "rs_cnf" parameter to indicate the key the RS is the token and the "rs_cnf" parameter to indicate the key the RS is
supposed to use to authenticate to the client. supposed to use to authenticate to the client.
Header: Created Code=2.01) Header: Created Code=2.01)
Content-Format: "application/ace+cbor" Content-Format: "application/ace+cbor"
Payload: Payload:
{ {
skipping to change at page 8, line 8 skipping to change at page 8, line 8
a "req_cnf" and symmetric keys are used. Used to indicate the a "req_cnf" and symmetric keys are used. Used to indicate the
symmetric key generated by the AS for proof-of-possession of the symmetric key generated by the AS for proof-of-possession of the
access token. access token.
o "cnf" in the introspection response AS -> RS, REQUIRED if the o "cnf" in the introspection response AS -> RS, REQUIRED if the
access token that was subject to introspection is a proof-of- access token that was subject to introspection is a proof-of-
possession token, absent otherwise. Indicates the proof-of- possession token, absent otherwise. Indicates the proof-of-
possession key bound to the access token. possession key bound to the access token.
o "rs_cnf" in the token response AS -> C, OPTIONAL to indicate the o "rs_cnf" in the token response AS -> C, OPTIONAL to indicate the
public key of the RS, if it uses one to authenticate to the public key of the RS, if it uses one to authenticate itself to the
client. client and the binding between key and RS identity is not
established through other means.
o "rs_cnf" in the introspection response AS -> RS, OPTIONAL, o "rs_cnf" in the introspection response AS -> RS, OPTIONAL,
contains the public key that the RS should use for authenticating contains the public key that the RS should use for authenticating
to the client (e.g. if the RS has several different public keys). itself to the client (e.g. if the RS has several different public
keys, and there may be ambiguity as to which key to use).
Note that the COSE_Key structure in a confirmation claim or parameter Note that the COSE_Key structure in a confirmation claim or parameter
may contain an "alg" or "key_ops" parameter. If such parameters are may contain an "alg" or "key_ops" parameter. If such parameters are
present, a client MUST NOT use a key that is not compatible with the present, a client MUST NOT use a key that is incompatible with the
profile or proof-of-possession algorithm according to those profile or proof-of-possession algorithm according to those
parameters. An RS MUST reject a proof-of-possession using such a parameters. An RS MUST reject a proof-of-possession using such a
key. key.
If an access token is issued for an audience that includes several If an access token is issued for an audience that includes several
RS, the "rs_cnf" parameter MUST NOT be used, since the client cannot RS, the "rs_cnf" parameter MUST NOT be used, since the client cannot
determine for which RS the key applies. This document recommends to determine for which RS the key applies. This document recommends to
specify a different endpoint that the client can use to acquire RS specify a different endpoint that the client can use to acquire RS
authentication keys in such cases. The specification of such an authentication keys in such cases. The specification of such an
endpoint is out of scope for this document. endpoint is out of scope for this document.
6. CBOR Mappings 6. CBOR Mappings
If CBOR is used, the new parameters and claims defined in this If CBOR is used, the new parameters and claims defined in this
document MUST be mapped to CBOR types as specified in Figure 5, using document MUST be mapped to CBOR types as specified in Figure 5, using
the given integer abbreviation for the map key. the given integer abbreviation for the map key.
/-----------------+----------+----------------------------------\ /----------+----------+-------------------------------------\
| Parameter name | CBOR Key | Value Type | | Name | CBOR Key | Value Type | Usage |
|-----------------+----------+----------------------------------| |----------+----------+-------------------------------------|
| req_cnf | TBD (4) | map | | req_cnf | TBD (4) | map | token request |
| cnf | TBD (8) | map | | cnf | TBD (8) | map | token response |
| rs_cnf | TBD (41) | map | | cnf | TBD (8) | map | introspection response |
\-----------------+----------+----------------------------------/ | rs_cnf | TBD (41) | map | token response |
| rs_cnf | TBD (41) | map | introspection response |
| rs_cnf | TBD (41) | map | CWT claim |
\----------+----------+------------+------------------------/
Figure 5: CBOR mappings for new parameters. Figure 5: CBOR mappings for new parameters and claims.
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
This document is an extension to [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz]. All This document is an extension to [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz]. All
security considerations from that document apply here as well. security considerations from that document apply here as well.
8. Privacy Considerations 8. Privacy Considerations
This document is an extension to [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz]. All This document is an extension to [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz]. All
privacy considerations from that document apply here as well. privacy considerations from that document apply here as well.
9. IANA Considerations 9. IANA Considerations
9.1. JSON Web Token Claims 9.1. JSON Web Token Claims
This specification registers the following new claim in the JSON Web This specification registers the following new claim in the JSON Web
Token (JWT) registry of JSON Web Token Claims Token (JWT) registry of JSON Web Token Claims
[IANA.JsonWebTokenClaims]: [IANA.JsonWebTokenClaims]:
o Claim Name: "rs_cnf" o Claim Name: "rs_cnf"
o Claim Description: The public key the RS is supposed to use to o Claim Description: public key used by RS to authenticate itself to
authenticate to the client wielding this token. the client.
o Change Controller: IESG o Change Controller: IESG
o Reference: Section 3.3 of [this document] o Reference: Section 3.3 of [this document]
9.2. CBOR Web Token Claims 9.2. CBOR Web Token Claims
This specification registers the following new claim in the "CBOR Web This specification registers the following new claim in the "CBOR Web
Token (CWT) Claims" registry [IANA.CborWebTokenClaims]. Token (CWT) Claims" registry [IANA.CborWebTokenClaims].
o Claim Name: "rs_cnf" o Claim Name: "rs_cnf"
o Claim Description: The public key the RS is supposed to use to o Claim Description: public key used by RS to authenticate itself to
authenticate to the client wielding this token. the client.
o JWT Claim Name: rs_cnf o JWT Claim Name: rs_cnf
o Claim Key: TBD (suggested: 41) o Claim Key: TBD (suggested: 41)
o Claim Value Type(s): map o Claim Value Type(s): map
o Change Controller: IESG o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): Section 3.3 of [this document] o Specification Document(s): Section 3.3 of [this document]
9.3. OAuth Parameter Registration 9.3. OAuth Parameter Registration
This section registers the following parameters in the "OAuth This section registers the following parameters in the "OAuth
Parameters" registry [IANA.OAuthParameters]: Parameters" registry [IANA.OAuthParameters]:
skipping to change at page 10, line 20 skipping to change at page 10, line 25
This section registers the following parameters in the OAuth Token This section registers the following parameters in the OAuth Token
Introspection Response registry [IANA.TokenIntrospectionResponse]. Introspection Response registry [IANA.TokenIntrospectionResponse].
o Name: "cnf" o Name: "cnf"
o Description: Key to prove the right to use a PoP token. o Description: Key to prove the right to use a PoP token.
o Change Controller: IESG o Change Controller: IESG
o Reference: Section 4.1 of [this document] o Reference: Section 4.1 of [this document]
o Name: "rs_cnf" o Name: "rs_cnf"
o Description: The key the RS should use to authenticate to the o Description: public key used by RS to authenticate itself to the
client. client.
o Change Controller: IESG o Change Controller: IESG
o Reference: Section 4.1 of [this document] o Reference: Section 4.1 of [this document]
9.5. Token Endpoint CBOR Mappings Registraton 9.5. OAuth Parameters CBOR Mappings Registraton
This section registers the following parameter mappings in the "Token This section registers the following parameter mappings in the "OAuth
Endpoint CBOR Mappings" registry established in section 8.9. of Parameters CBOR Mappings" registry established in section 8.9. of
[I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz]. [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz].
o Name: "req_cnf" o Name: "req_cnf"
o CBOR key: TBD (suggested: 4) o CBOR key: TBD (suggested: 4)
o Change Controller: IESG o Change Controller: IESG
o Reference: Section 3.1 of [this document] o Reference: Section 3.1 of [this document]
o Name: "cnf" o Name: "cnf"
o CBOR key: TBD (suggested: 8) o CBOR key: TBD (suggested: 8)
o Change Controller: IESG o Change Controller: IESG
o Reference: Section 3.2 of [this document] o Reference: Section 3.2 of [this document]
o Name: "rs_cnf" o Name: "rs_cnf"
o CBOR key: TBD (suggested: 41) o CBOR key: TBD (suggested: 41)
o Change Controller: IESG o Change Controller: IESG
o Reference: Section 3.2 of [this document] o Reference: Section 3.2 of [this document]
9.6. Introspection Endpoint CBOR Mappings Registraton 9.6. OAuth Token Introspection Response CBOR Mappings Registration
This section registers the following parameter mappings in the This section registers the following parameter mappings in the "OAuth
"Introspection Endpoint CBOR Mappings" registry established in Token Introspection Response CBOR Mappings" registry established in
section 8.11. of [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz]. section 8.11. of [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz].
o Name: "cnf" o Name: "cnf"
o CBOR key: TBD (suggested: 8) o CBOR key: TBD (suggested: 8)
o Change Controller: IESG o Change Controller: IESG
o Reference: Section 4.1 of [this document] o Reference: Section 4.1 of [this document]
o Name: "rs_cnf" o Name: "rs_cnf"
o CBOR key: TBD (suggested: 41) o CBOR key: TBD (suggested: 41)
o Change Controller: IESG o Change Controller: IESG
skipping to change at page 11, line 30 skipping to change at page 11, line 36
projects CyberWI, and CRITISEC with funding from Vinnova. projects CyberWI, and CRITISEC with funding from Vinnova.
11. References 11. References
11.1. Normative References 11.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession] [I-D.ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession]
Jones, M., Seitz, L., Selander, G., Erdtman, S., and H. Jones, M., Seitz, L., Selander, G., Erdtman, S., and H.
Tschofenig, "Proof-of-Possession Key Semantics for CBOR Tschofenig, "Proof-of-Possession Key Semantics for CBOR
Web Tokens (CWTs)", draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of- Web Tokens (CWTs)", draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-
possession-06 (work in progress), February 2019. possession-11 (work in progress), October 2019.
[I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz] [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz]
Seitz, L., Selander, G., Wahlstroem, E., Erdtman, S., and Seitz, L., Selander, G., Wahlstroem, E., Erdtman, S., and
H. Tschofenig, "Authentication and Authorization for H. Tschofenig, "Authentication and Authorization for
Constrained Environments (ACE) using the OAuth 2.0 Constrained Environments (ACE) using the OAuth 2.0
Framework (ACE-OAuth)", draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz-22 Framework (ACE-OAuth)", draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz-25
(work in progress), March 2019. (work in progress), October 2019.
[IANA.CborWebTokenClaims] [IANA.CborWebTokenClaims]
IANA, "CBOR Web Token (CWT) Claims", IANA, "CBOR Web Token (CWT) Claims",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/cwt/ <https://www.iana.org/assignments/cwt/
cwt.xhtml#claims-registry>. cwt.xhtml#claims-registry>.
[IANA.JsonWebTokenClaims] [IANA.JsonWebTokenClaims]
IANA, "JSON Web Token Claims", IANA, "JSON Web Token Claims",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/jwt/jwt.xhtml#claims>. <https://www.iana.org/assignments/jwt/jwt.xhtml#claims>.
skipping to change at page 12, line 19 skipping to change at page 12, line 24
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC6749] Hardt, D., Ed., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework", [RFC6749] Hardt, D., Ed., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework",
RFC 6749, DOI 10.17487/RFC6749, October 2012, RFC 6749, DOI 10.17487/RFC6749, October 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6749>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6749>.
[RFC7252] Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7252>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
11.2. Informative References 11.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-oauth-pop-key-distribution] [I-D.ietf-oauth-pop-key-distribution]
Bradley, J., Hunt, P., Jones, M., Tschofenig, H., and M. Bradley, J., Hunt, P., Jones, M., Tschofenig, H., and M.
Meszaros, "OAuth 2.0 Proof-of-Possession: Authorization Meszaros, "OAuth 2.0 Proof-of-Possession: Authorization
Server to Client Key Distribution", draft-ietf-oauth-pop- Server to Client Key Distribution", draft-ietf-oauth-pop-
key-distribution-06 (work in progress), March 2019. key-distribution-07 (work in progress), March 2019.
[RFC7252] Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7252>.
Appendix A. Overlap with OAuth work Appendix A. Overlap with OAuth work
This document overlaps with draft work from OAuth on proof-of- This document overlaps with draft work from OAuth on proof-of-
possesion keys [I-D.ietf-oauth-pop-key-distribution]. possesion keys [I-D.ietf-oauth-pop-key-distribution].
The OAuth draft specifies the use of "req_cnf" and "cnf" for The OAuth draft specifies the use of "req_cnf" and "cnf" for
requesting proof-of-possession tokens and indicating the key that the requesting proof-of-possession tokens and indicating the key that the
AS has selected. It it was initially deemed that the work at OAuth AS has selected. It it was initially deemed that the work at OAuth
had been discontinued and therefore equivalent functionality was had been discontinued and therefore equivalent functionality was
 End of changes. 31 change blocks. 
58 lines changed or deleted 67 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/