draft-ietf-ace-oauth-params-11.txt   draft-ietf-ace-oauth-params-12.txt 
ACE Working Group L. Seitz ACE Working Group L. Seitz
Internet-Draft Combitech Internet-Draft Combitech
Intended status: Standards Track January 11, 2020 Intended status: Standards Track February 1, 2020
Expires: July 14, 2020 Expires: August 4, 2020
Additional OAuth Parameters for Authorization in Constrained Additional OAuth Parameters for Authorization in Constrained
Environments (ACE) Environments (ACE)
draft-ietf-ace-oauth-params-11 draft-ietf-ace-oauth-params-12
Abstract Abstract
This specification defines new parameters for the OAuth 2.0 token and This specification defines new parameters and encodings for the OAuth
introspection endpoints when used with the framework for 2.0 token and introspection endpoints when used with the framework
authentication and authorization for constrained environments (ACE). for authentication and authorization for constrained environments
These are used to express the proof-of-possession key the client (ACE). These are used to express the proof-of-possession key the
wishes to use, the proof-of-possession key that the Authorization client wishes to use, the proof-of-possession key that the
Server has selected, and the key the Resource Server should use to Authorization Server has selected, and the key the Resource Server
authenticate to the client. uses to authenticate to the client.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 14, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 4, 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
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
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
4. Parameters for the Introspection Endpoint . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Parameters for the Introspection Endpoint . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. AS-to-RS Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Confirmation Method Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Confirmation Method Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. CBOR Mappings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. CBOR Mappings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. Requirements when using asymmetric keys . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.1. JSON Web Token Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10.1. OAuth Parameter Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.2. CBOR Web Token Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10.2. OAuth Parameters CBOR Mappings Registration . . . . . . 9
9.3. OAuth Parameter Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10.3. OAuth Token Introspection Response CBOR Mappings
9.4. OAuth Introspection Response Parameter Registration . . . 10 Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.5. OAuth Parameters CBOR Mappings Registration . . . . . . . 10 11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.6. OAuth Token Introspection Response CBOR Mappings 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 have therefore been put into a dedicated document, to contexts and have therefore been put into a dedicated document, to
facilitate their use in a manner independent of facilitate their use in a manner independent of
skipping to change at page 6, line 10 skipping to change at page 6, line 10
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" : h'D08343A1010AA1054D2A45DF6FBC5A5A ... "access_token" : h'D08343A1010AA1054D2A45DF6FBC5A5A ...
(remainder of CWT omitted for brevity; (remainder of CWT omitted for brevity)',
CWT contains COSE_Key in the "cnf" claim)',
"rs_cnf" : { "rs_cnf" : {
"COSE_Key" : { "COSE_Key" : {
"kty" : "EC2", "kty" : "EC2",
"kid" : h'12', "kid" : h'12',
"crv" : "P-256", "crv" : "P-256",
"x" : h'BCEE7EAAC162F91E6F330F5771211E220 "x" : h'BCEE7EAAC162F91E6F330F5771211E220
B8B546C96589B0AC4AD0FD24C77E1F1', B8B546C96589B0AC4AD0FD24C77E1F1',
"y" : h'C647B38C55EFBBC4E62E651720F002D5D "y" : h'C647B38C55EFBBC4E62E651720F002D5D
75B2E0C02CD1326E662BCA222B90416' 75B2E0C02CD1326E662BCA222B90416'
} }
} }
} }
Figure 3: Example AS response, including the RS's public key. Figure 3: Example AS response, including the RS's public key.
3.3. The Resource Server Confirmation Claim
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
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.
4. Parameters for the Introspection Endpoint 4. Parameters for the Introspection Endpoint
This section defines an additional parameter for the interactions This section defines the use of CBOR instead of JSON for the "cnf"
with the introspection endpoint in the ACE framework introspection response parameter specified in section 9.4 of
[I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz]. [I-D.ietf-oauth-mtls].
4.1. AS-to-RS Response
This section defines the following additional parameter for an AS
response to a request to the introspection endpoint:
rs_cnf
OPTIONAL. If the RS uses asymmetric keys to authenticate towards
the client (e.g., with a DTLS Raw Public Key handshake [RFC7250]
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
which key it should use. Values of this parameter follow the
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
or section 3.1 of [RFC7800] for JSON-based interactions. See
Section 5 for additional discussion of the usage of this
parameter.
Furthermore the AS can use the "cnf" parameter specified in section If CBOR is used instead of JSON in an interaction with the
9.4 of [I-D.ietf-oauth-mtls] in an introspection response. For CBOR- introspection endpoint, the AS MUST use the parameter mapping
based interactions the AS MUST use the parameter mapping specified in specified in Figure 5 and the value must follow the syntax of "cnf"
Figure 5 and the value must follow the syntax of "cnf" claim values claim values from section 3.1 of
from section 3.1 of [I-D.ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession]. [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.
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:
{ {
"active" : true, "active" : true,
"scope" : "read", "scope" : "read",
"aud" : "tempSensor4711", "aud" : "tempSensor4711",
"cnf" : { "cnf" : {
"COSE_Key" : { "COSE_Key" : {
"kty" : "EC2", "kty" : "EC2",
"kid" : h'11', "kid" : h'11',
"crv" : "P-256", "crv" : "P-256",
"x" : h'BAC5B11CAD8F99F9C72B05CF4B9E26D24 "x" : h'BAC5B11CAD8F99F9C72B05CF4B9E26D24
4DC189F745228255A219A86D6A09EFF', 4DC189F745228255A219A86D6A09EFF',
"y" : h'20138BF82DC1B6D562BE0FA54AB7804A3 "y" : h'20138BF82DC1B6D562BE0FA54AB7804A3
A64B6D72CCFED6B6FB6ED28BBFC117E' A64B6D72CCFED6B6FB6ED28BBFC117E'
} }
},
"rs_cnf" : {
"COSE_Key" : {
"kty" : "EC2",
"kid" : h'12',
"crv" : "P-256",
"x" : h'BCEE7EAAC162F91E6F330F5771211E220
B8B546C96589B0AC4AD0FD24C77E1F1',
"y" : h'C647B38C55EFBBC4E62E651720F002D5D
75B2E0C02CD1326E662BCA222B90416'
}
} }
} }
Figure 4: Example introspection response. Figure 4: Example introspection response.
5. Confirmation Method Parameters 5. Confirmation Method Parameters
The confirmation method parameters are used as follows: The confirmation method parameters are used as follows:
o "req_cnf" in the access token request C -> AS, OPTIONAL to o "req_cnf" in the access token request C -> AS, OPTIONAL to
skipping to change at page 8, line 31 skipping to change at page 8, line 5
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 itself to the public key of the RS, if it uses one to authenticate itself to the
client and the binding between key and RS identity is not client and the binding between key and RS identity is not
established through other means. established through other means.
o "rs_cnf" in the introspection response AS -> RS, OPTIONAL,
contains the public key that the RS should use for authenticating
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 incompatible 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
skipping to change at page 9, line 18 skipping to change at page 8, line 32
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.
/----------+----------+-------------------------------------\ /----------+----------+-------------------------------------\
| Name | CBOR Key | Value Type | Usage | | Name | CBOR Key | Value Type | Usage |
|----------+----------+-------------------------------------| |----------+----------+-------------------------------------|
| req_cnf | TBD (4) | map | token request | | req_cnf | TBD (4) | map | token request |
| cnf | TBD (8) | map | token response | | cnf | TBD (8) | map | token response |
| cnf | TBD (8) | map | introspection response | | cnf | TBD (8) | map | introspection response |
| rs_cnf | TBD (41) | map | token 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 and claims. Figure 5: CBOR mappings for new parameters and claims.
7. Security Considerations 7. Requirements when using asymmetric keys
An RS using asymmetric keys to authenticate to the client MUST NOT
hold several different asymmetric key pairs, applicable to the same
authentication algorithm. For example when using DTLS, the RS MUST
NOT hold several asymmetric key pairs applicable to the same cipher
suite. The reason for this restriction is that the RS has no way of
determining which key to use before the client's identity is
established. Therefore authentication attempts by the RS could
randomly fail based on which key the RS selects, unless the algorithm
negotiation produces a unique choice of key pair for the RS.
8. 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 9. 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 10. IANA Considerations
9.1. JSON Web Token Claims
This specification registers the following new claim in the JSON Web
Token (JWT) registry of JSON Web Token Claims
[IANA.JsonWebTokenClaims]:
o Claim Name: "rs_cnf"
o Claim Description: public key used by RS to authenticate itself to
the client.
o Change Controller: IESG
o Reference: Section 3.3 of [this document]
9.2. CBOR Web Token Claims
This specification registers the following new claim in the "CBOR Web
Token (CWT) Claims" registry [IANA.CborWebTokenClaims].
o Claim Name: "rs_cnf"
o Claim Description: public key used by RS to authenticate itself to
the client.
o JWT Claim Name: rs_cnf
o Claim Key: TBD (suggested: 41)
o Claim Value Type(s): map
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): Section 3.3 of [this document]
9.3. OAuth Parameter Registration 10.1. 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]:
o Name: "req_cnf" o Name: "req_cnf"
o Parameter Usage Location: token request o Parameter Usage Location: token request
o Change Controller: IESG o Change Controller: IESG
o Reference: Section 5 of [this document] o Reference: Section 5 of [this document]
o Name: "rs_cnf" o Name: "rs_cnf"
o Parameter Usage Location: token response o Parameter Usage Location: token response
o Change Controller: IESG o Change Controller: IESG
o Reference: Section 5 of [this document] o Reference: Section 5 of [this document]
o Name: "cnf" o Name: "cnf"
o Parameter Usage Location: token response o Parameter Usage Location: token response
o Change Controller: IESG o Change Controller: IESG
o Reference: Section 5 of [this document] o Reference: Section 5 of [this document]
9.4. OAuth Introspection Response Parameter Registration 10.2. OAuth Parameters CBOR Mappings Registration
This section registers the following parameter in the OAuth Token
Introspection Response registry [IANA.TokenIntrospectionResponse].
o Name: "rs_cnf"
o Description: public key used by RS to authenticate itself to the
client.
o Change Controller: IESG
o Reference: Section 4.1 of [this document]
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]
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. OAuth Token Introspection Response CBOR Mappings Registration 10.3. OAuth Token Introspection Response CBOR Mappings Registration
This section registers the following parameter mappings in the "OAuth This section registers the following parameter mapping in the "OAuth
Token Introspection Response 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 of [this document]
o Name: "rs_cnf"
o CBOR key: TBD (suggested: 41)
o Change Controller: IESG
o Reference: Section 4.1 of [this document]
10. Acknowledgments 11. Acknowledgments
This document is a product of the ACE working group of the IETF. This document is a product of the ACE working group of the IETF.
Special thanks to Brian Campbell for his thorough review of this
document.
Ludwig Seitz worked on this document as part of the CelticNext Ludwig Seitz worked on this document as part of the CelticNext
projects CyberWI, and CRITISEC with funding from Vinnova. projects CyberWI, and CRITISEC with funding from Vinnova.
11. References 12. References
11.1. Normative References 12.1. 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-11 (work in progress), October 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-29 Framework (ACE-OAuth)", draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz-31
(work in progress), December 2019. (work in progress), January 2020.
[I-D.ietf-oauth-mtls] [I-D.ietf-oauth-mtls]
Campbell, B., Bradley, J., Sakimura, N., and T. Campbell, B., Bradley, J., Sakimura, N., and T.
Lodderstedt, "OAuth 2.0 Mutual-TLS Client Authentication Lodderstedt, "OAuth 2.0 Mutual-TLS Client Authentication
and Certificate-Bound Access Tokens", draft-ietf-oauth- and Certificate-Bound Access Tokens", draft-ietf-oauth-
mtls-17 (work in progress), August 2019. mtls-17 (work in progress), August 2019.
[IANA.CborWebTokenClaims]
IANA, "CBOR Web Token (CWT) Claims",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/cwt/cwt.xhtml#claims-
registry>.
[IANA.JsonWebTokenClaims]
IANA, "JSON Web Token Claims",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/jwt/jwt.xhtml#claims>.
[IANA.OAuthParameters] [IANA.OAuthParameters]
IANA, "OAuth Parameters", IANA, "OAuth Parameters",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/oauth-parameters/oauth- <https://www.iana.org/assignments/oauth-parameters/oauth-
parameters.xhtml#parameters>. parameters.xhtml#parameters>.
[IANA.TokenIntrospectionResponse]
IANA, "OAuth Token Introspection Response",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/oauth-parameters/oauth-
parameters.xhtml#token-introspection-response>.
[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>.
[RFC7049] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object [RFC7049] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
skipping to change at page 13, line 23 skipping to change at page 11, line 36
[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,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, December 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8259>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8259>.
11.2. Informative References 12.2. Informative References
[RFC7250] Wouters, P., Ed., Tschofenig, H., Ed., Gilmore, J.,
Weiler, S., and T. Kivinen, "Using Raw Public Keys in
Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport
Layer Security (DTLS)", RFC 7250, DOI 10.17487/RFC7250,
June 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7250>.
[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,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014, DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7252>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7252>.
Author's Address Author's Address
Ludwig Seitz Ludwig Seitz
Combitech Combitech
 End of changes. 31 change blocks. 
161 lines changed or deleted 65 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/