draft-ietf-ace-oauth-params-10.txt   draft-ietf-ace-oauth-params-11.txt 
ACE Working Group L. Seitz ACE Working Group L. Seitz
Internet-Draft Combitech Internet-Draft Combitech
Intended status: Standards Track January 7, 2020 Intended status: Standards Track January 11, 2020
Expires: July 10, 2020 Expires: July 14, 2020
Additional OAuth Parameters for Authorization in Constrained Additional OAuth Parameters for Authorization in Constrained
Environments (ACE) Environments (ACE)
draft-ietf-ace-oauth-params-10 draft-ietf-ace-oauth-params-11
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
wishes to use, the proof-of-possession key that the Authorization wishes to use, the proof-of-possession key that the Authorization
Server has selected, and the key the Resource Server should use to Server has selected, and the key the Resource Server should use to
authenticate to the client. authenticate to the client.
skipping to change at page 1, line 37 skipping to change at page 1, line 37
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 July 10, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on July 14, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2020 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
skipping to change at page 2, line 27 skipping to change at page 2, line 27
4.1. AS-to-RS Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1. AS-to-RS Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Confirmation Method Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Confirmation Method Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. CBOR Mappings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. CBOR Mappings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9.3. OAuth Parameter Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.4. OAuth Introspection Response Parameter Registration . . . 10 9.4. OAuth Introspection Response Parameter Registration . . . 10
9.5. OAuth Parameters CBOR Mappings Registraton . . . . . . . 10 9.5. OAuth Parameters CBOR Mappings Registration . . . . . . . 10
9.6. OAuth Token Introspection Response CBOR Mappings 9.6. OAuth Token Introspection Response CBOR Mappings
Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
skipping to change at page 3, line 47 skipping to change at page 3, line 47
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 containing a symmetric key value in the 'req_cnf' field
(kty=Symmetric), since the AS is expected to be able to generate (kty=Symmetric), since the AS is expected to be able to generate
better symmetric keys than a constrained client. The AS MUST better symmetric keys than a constrained client. The AS MUST
verify that the client really is in possession of the verify that the client really is in possession of the
corresponding key. Values of this parameter follow the syntax and corresponding key. Values of this parameter follow the syntax and
semantics of the "cnf" claim from section 3.1 of semantics of the "cnf" claim either from section 3.1 of
[I-D.ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession]. [I-D.ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession] for CBOR-based interactions
or from section 3.1 of [RFC7800] for JSON-based interactions.
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 and with line-breaks for better readability. abbreviations and with line-breaks 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 39 skipping to change at page 4, line 39
3.2. AS-to-Client Response 3.2. AS-to-Client Response
This section defines the following additional parameters for an AS This section 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 and for the token. Values of this parameter follow the syntax and
semantics of the "cnf" claim from section 3.1 of semantics of the "cnf" claim either from section 3.1 of
[I-D.ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession]. See Section 5 for [I-D.ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession] for CBOR-based interactions
additional discussion of the usage of this parameter. of from section 3.1 of [RFC7800] for JSON-based interactions. See
Section 5 for 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 knows that the RS can authenticate itself to the client the AS knows that the RS can authenticate itself to the client
without additional information. Values of this parameter follow without additional information. Values of this parameter follow
the syntax and semantics of the "cnf" claim from section 3.1 of the syntax and semantics of the "cnf" claim either from section
3.1 of [I-D.ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession] for CBOR-based
[I-D.ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession]. See Section 5 for interactions or from section 3.1 of [RFC7800] for JSON-based
additional discussion of the usage of this parameter. interactions. 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" : h'4A5015DF686428 ... "access_token" : h'4A5015DF686428 ...
(remainder of CWT omitted for brevity; (remainder of CWT omitted for brevity;
skipping to change at page 6, line 51 skipping to change at page 6, line 51
This section defines the following additional parameter for an AS This section defines the following additional parameter for an AS
response to a request to the introspection endpoint: response to a request to the introspection endpoint:
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 Raw Public Key handshake [RFC7250] the client (e.g., with a DTLS Raw Public Key handshake [RFC7250]
and it has several such keys (e.g., for different elliptic and it has several such keys (e.g., for different elliptic
curves), the AS can give the RS a hint using this parameter, as to curves), the AS can give the RS a hint using this parameter, as to
which key it should use. Values of this parameter follow the which key it should use. Values of this parameter follow the
syntax and semantics of the "cnf" claim from section 3.1 of syntax and semantics of the "cnf" claim from either section 3.1 of
[I-D.ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession] for CBOR-based interactions
[I-D.ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession]. See Section 5 for or section 3.1 of [RFC7800] for JSON-based interactions. See
additional discussion of the usage of this parameter. Section 5 for additional discussion of the usage of this
parameter.
Furthermore the AS can use the "cnf" parameter specified in section Furthermore the AS can use the "cnf" parameter specified in section
9.4 of [I-D.ietf-oauth-mtls] in an introspection response. For CBOR- 9.4 of [I-D.ietf-oauth-mtls] in an introspection response. For CBOR-
based interactions the AS MUST use the parameter mapping specified in based interactions the AS MUST use the parameter mapping specified in
Figure 5. Figure 5 and the value must follow the syntax of "cnf" claim values
from section 3.1 of [I-D.ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession].
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 10, line 45 skipping to change at page 10, line 45
This section registers the following parameter in the OAuth Token This section registers the following parameter in the OAuth Token
Introspection Response registry [IANA.TokenIntrospectionResponse]. Introspection Response registry [IANA.TokenIntrospectionResponse].
o Name: "rs_cnf" o Name: "rs_cnf"
o Description: public key used by RS to authenticate itself 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. OAuth Parameters CBOR Mappings Registraton 9.5. OAuth Parameters CBOR Mappings Registration
This section registers the following parameter mappings in the "OAuth This section registers the following parameter mappings in the "OAuth
Parameters 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]
skipping to change at page 12, line 50 skipping to change at page 13, line 5
<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>.
[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, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7049>. October 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7049>.
[RFC7800] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and H. Tschofenig, "Proof-of-
Possession Key Semantics for JSON Web Tokens (JWTs)",
RFC 7800, DOI 10.17487/RFC7800, April 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7800>.
[RFC8152] Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)", [RFC8152] Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)",
RFC 8152, DOI 10.17487/RFC8152, July 2017, RFC 8152, DOI 10.17487/RFC8152, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8152>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8152>.
[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>.
[RFC8259] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data [RFC8259] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259, Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259,
 End of changes. 11 change blocks. 
20 lines changed or deleted 31 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/