draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-08.txt   draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-09.txt 
OAuth Working Group M. Jones OAuth Working Group M. Jones
Internet-Draft Microsoft Internet-Draft Microsoft
Intended status: Standards Track B. Campbell Intended status: Standards Track B. Campbell
Expires: September 20, 2014 Ping Identity Expires: October 30, 2014 Ping Identity
C. Mortimore C. Mortimore
Salesforce Salesforce
March 19, 2014 April 28, 2014
JSON Web Token (JWT) Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and JSON Web Token (JWT) Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and
Authorization Grants Authorization Grants
draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-08 draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-09
Abstract Abstract
This specification defines the use of a JSON Web Token (JWT) Bearer This specification defines the use of a JSON Web Token (JWT) Bearer
Token as a means for requesting an OAuth 2.0 access token as well as Token as a means for requesting an OAuth 2.0 access token as well as
for use as a means of client authentication. for use as a means of client authentication.
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 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 September 20, 2014. This Internet-Draft will expire on October 30, 2014.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2014 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
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. HTTP Parameter Bindings for Transporting Assertions . . . . . 4 2. HTTP Parameter Bindings for Transporting Assertions . . . . . 4
2.1. Using JWTs as Authorization Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. Using JWTs as Authorization Grants . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Using JWTs for Client Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2. Using JWTs for Client Authentication . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. JWT Format and Processing Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. JWT Format and Processing Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Authorization Grant Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1. Authorization Grant Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Client Authentication Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2. Client Authentication Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Authorization Grant Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. Authorization Grant Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Interoperability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. Interoperability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1. Sub-Namespace Registration of 7.1. Sub-Namespace Registration of urn:ietf:params:oauth
urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:jwt-bearer . . . . . . . 10 :grant-type:jwt-bearer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.2. Sub-Namespace Registration of 7.2. Sub-Namespace Registration of urn:ietf:params:oauth
urn:ietf:params:oauth:client-assertion-type:jwt-bearer . . 10 :client-assertion-type:jwt-bearer . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix B. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Appendix B. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
JSON Web Token (JWT) [JWT] is a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) JSON Web Token (JWT) [JWT] is a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)
[RFC7159] based security token encoding that enables identity and [RFC7159] based security token encoding that enables identity and
security information to be shared across security domains. A security information to be shared across security domains. A
security token is generally issued by an identity provider and security token is generally issued by an identity provider and
consumed by a relying party that relies on its content to identify consumed by a relying party that relies on its content to identify
the token's subject for security related purposes. the token's subject for security related purposes.
skipping to change at page 3, line 32 skipping to change at page 3, line 12
are defined to support a wide range of client types and user are defined to support a wide range of client types and user
experiences. OAuth also allows for the definition of new extension experiences. OAuth also allows for the definition of new extension
grant types to support additional clients or to provide a bridge grant types to support additional clients or to provide a bridge
between OAuth and other trust frameworks. Finally, OAuth allows the between OAuth and other trust frameworks. Finally, OAuth allows the
definition of additional authentication mechanisms to be used by definition of additional authentication mechanisms to be used by
clients when interacting with the authorization server. clients when interacting with the authorization server.
The Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and The Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and
Authorization Grants [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions] specification is an Authorization Grants [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions] specification is an
abstract extension to OAuth 2.0 that provides a general framework for abstract extension to OAuth 2.0 that provides a general framework for
the use of Assertions (a.k.a. Security Tokens) as client credentials the use of Assertions (a.k.a. Security Tokens) as client credentials
and/or authorization grants with OAuth 2.0. This specification and/or authorization grants with OAuth 2.0. This specification
profiles the Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication profiles the Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication
and Authorization Grants [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions] specification to and Authorization Grants [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions] specification to
define an extension grant type that uses a JSON Web Token (JWT) define an extension grant type that uses a JSON Web Token (JWT)
Bearer Token to request an OAuth 2.0 access token as well as for use Bearer Token to request an OAuth 2.0 access token as well as for use
as client credentials. The format and processing rules for the JWT as client credentials. The format and processing rules for the JWT
defined in this specification are intentionally similar, though not defined in this specification are intentionally similar, though not
identical, to those in the closely related SAML 2.0 Profile for OAuth identical, to those in the closely related SAML 2.0 Profile for OAuth
2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants
[I-D.ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer] specification. [I-D.ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer] specification.
skipping to change at page 5, line 15 skipping to change at page 4, line 42
The value of the "grant_type" parameter MUST be The value of the "grant_type" parameter MUST be
"urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:jwt-bearer". "urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:jwt-bearer".
The value of the "assertion" parameter MUST contain a single JWT. The value of the "assertion" parameter MUST contain a single JWT.
The "scope" parameter may be used, as defined in the Assertion The "scope" parameter may be used, as defined in the Assertion
Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization
Grants [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions] specification, to indicate the Grants [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions] specification, to indicate the
requested scope. requested scope.
Authentication of the client is optional, as described in Section Authentication of the client is optional, as described in
3.2.1 of OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749] and consequently, the "client_id" is Section 3.2.1 of OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749] and consequently, the
only needed when a form of client authentication that relies on the "client_id" is only needed when a form of client authentication that
parameter is used. relies on the parameter is used.
The following non-normative example demonstrates an Access Token The following non-normative example demonstrates an Access Token
Request with a JWT as an authorization grant (with extra line breaks Request with a JWT as an authorization grant (with extra line breaks
for display purposes only): for display purposes only):
POST /token.oauth2 HTTP/1.1 POST /token.oauth2 HTTP/1.1
Host: as.example.com Host: as.example.com
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
grant_type=urn%3Aietf%3Aparams%3Aoauth%3Agrant-type%3Ajwt-bearer grant_type=urn%3Aietf%3Aparams%3Aoauth%3Agrant-type%3Ajwt-bearer
skipping to change at page 6, line 36 skipping to change at page 6, line 12
unique identifier for the entity that issued the JWT. In the unique identifier for the entity that issued the JWT. In the
absence of an application profile specifying otherwise, absence of an application profile specifying otherwise,
compliant applications MUST compare Issuer values using the compliant applications MUST compare Issuer values using the
Simple String Comparison method defined in Section 6.2.1 of RFC Simple String Comparison method defined in Section 6.2.1 of RFC
3986 [RFC3986]. 3986 [RFC3986].
2. The JWT MUST contain a "sub" (subject) claim identifying the 2. The JWT MUST contain a "sub" (subject) claim identifying the
principal that is the subject of the JWT. Two cases need to be principal that is the subject of the JWT. Two cases need to be
differentiated: differentiated:
A. For the authorization grant, the subject SHOULD identify an A. For the authorization grant, the subject typically
authorized accessor for whom the access token is being identifies an authorized accessor for which the access token
requested (typically the resource owner, or an authorized is being requested (i.e., the resource owner or an
delegate). authorized delegate), but in some cases, may be a
pseudonymous identifier or other value denoting an anonymous
user.
B. For client authentication, the subject MUST be the B. For client authentication, the subject MUST be the
"client_id" of the OAuth client. "client_id" of the OAuth client.
3. The JWT MUST contain an "aud" (audience) claim containing a 3. The JWT MUST contain an "aud" (audience) claim containing a
value that identifies the authorization server as an intended value that identifies the authorization server as an intended
audience. The token endpoint URL of the authorization server audience. The token endpoint URL of the authorization server
MAY be used as a value for an "aud" element to identify the MAY be used as a value for an "aud" element to identify the
authorization server as an intended audience of the JWT. JWTs authorization server as an intended audience of the JWT. JWTs
that do not identify the authorization server as an intended that do not identify the authorization server as an intended
skipping to change at page 8, line 39 skipping to change at page 8, line 18
Though non-normative, the following examples illustrate what a Though non-normative, the following examples illustrate what a
conforming JWT and access token request would look like. conforming JWT and access token request would look like.
The example shows a JWT issued and signed by the system entity The example shows a JWT issued and signed by the system entity
identified as "https://jwt-idp.example.com". The subject of the JWT identified as "https://jwt-idp.example.com". The subject of the JWT
is identified by email address as "mike@example.com". The intended is identified by email address as "mike@example.com". The intended
audience of the JWT is "https://jwt-rp.example.net", which is an audience of the JWT is "https://jwt-rp.example.net", which is an
identifier with which the authorization server identifies itself. identifier with which the authorization server identifies itself.
The JWT is sent as part of an access token request to the The JWT is sent as part of an access token request to the
authorization server's token endpoint at authorization server's token endpoint at "https://authz.example.net/
"https://authz.example.net/token.oauth2". token.oauth2".
Below is an example JSON object that could be encoded to produce the Below is an example JSON object that could be encoded to produce the
JWT Claims Object for a JWT: JWT Claims Object for a JWT:
{"iss":"https://jwt-idp.example.com", {"iss":"https://jwt-idp.example.com",
"sub":"mailto:mike@example.com", "sub":"mailto:mike@example.com",
"aud":"https://jwt-rp.example.net", "aud":"https://jwt-rp.example.net",
"nbf":1300815780, "nbf":1300815780,
"exp":1300819380, "exp":1300819380,
"http://claims.example.com/member":true} "http://claims.example.com/member":true}
skipping to change at page 10, line 12 skipping to change at page 9, line 38
[RFC6749], and the JSON Web Token (JWT) [JWT] specifications are all [RFC6749], and the JSON Web Token (JWT) [JWT] specifications are all
applicable to this document. applicable to this document.
The specification does not mandate replay protection for the JWT The specification does not mandate replay protection for the JWT
usage for either the authorization grant or for client usage for either the authorization grant or for client
authentication. It is an optional feature, which implementations may authentication. It is an optional feature, which implementations may
employ at their own discretion. employ at their own discretion.
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
7.1. Sub-Namespace Registration of 7.1. Sub-Namespace Registration of urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type
urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:jwt-bearer :jwt-bearer
This specification registers the value "grant-type:jwt-bearer" in the This specification registers the value "grant-type:jwt-bearer" in the
IANA urn:ietf:params:oauth registry established in An IETF URN Sub- IANA urn:ietf:params:oauth registry established in An IETF URN Sub-
Namespace for OAuth [RFC6755]. Namespace for OAuth [RFC6755].
o URN: urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:jwt-bearer o URN: urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:jwt-bearer
o Common Name: JWT Bearer Token Grant Type Profile for OAuth 2.0 o Common Name: JWT Bearer Token Grant Type Profile for OAuth 2.0
o Change controller: IETF o Change controller: IETF
o Specification Document: [[this document]] o Specification Document: [[this document]]
7.2. Sub-Namespace Registration of 7.2. Sub-Namespace Registration of urn:ietf:params:oauth:client-
urn:ietf:params:oauth:client-assertion-type:jwt-bearer assertion-type:jwt-bearer
This specification registers the value This specification registers the value "client-assertion-type:jwt-
"client-assertion-type:jwt-bearer" in the IANA urn:ietf:params:oauth bearer" in the IANA urn:ietf:params:oauth registry established in An
registry established in An IETF URN Sub-Namespace for OAuth IETF URN Sub-Namespace for OAuth [RFC6755].
[RFC6755].
o URN: urn:ietf:params:oauth:client-assertion-type:jwt-bearer o URN: urn:ietf:params:oauth:client-assertion-type:jwt-bearer
o Common Name: JWT Bearer Token Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client o Common Name: JWT Bearer Token Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client
Authentication Authentication
o Change controller: IETF o Change controller: IETF
o Specification Document: [[this document]] o Specification Document: [[this document]]
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions] [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions]
Campbell, B., Mortimore, C., Jones, M., and Y. Goland, Campbell, B., Mortimore, C., Jones, M., and Y. Goland,
"Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication "Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication
and Authorization Grants", draft-ietf-oauth-assertions and Authorization Grants", draft-ietf-oauth-assertions
(work in progress), March 2014. (work in progress), April 2014.
[JWT] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token [JWT] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token
(JWT)", draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token (work in (JWT)", draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token (work in
progress), March 2014. progress), March 2014.
[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, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC
RFC 3986, January 2005. 3986, January 2005.
[RFC6749] Hardt, D., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework", [RFC6749] Hardt, D., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework", RFC
RFC 6749, October 2012. 6749, October 2012.
[RFC6755] Campbell, B. and H. Tschofenig, "An IETF URN Sub-Namespace [RFC6755] Campbell, B. and H. Tschofenig, "An IETF URN Sub-Namespace
for OAuth", RFC 6755, October 2012. for OAuth", RFC 6755, October 2012.
[RFC7159] Bray, T., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data [RFC7159] Bray, T., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
Interchange Format", RFC 7159, March 2014. Interchange Format", RFC 7159, March 2014.
8.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-oauth-dyn-reg] [I-D.ietf-oauth-dyn-reg]
Richer, J., Jones, M., Bradley, J., Machulak, M., and P. Richer, J., Jones, M., Bradley, J., Machulak, M., and P.
Hunt, "OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration Core Hunt, "OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration Core
Protocol", draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-16 (work in progress), Protocol", draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-16 (work in progress),
February 2014. February 2014.
[I-D.ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer] [I-D.ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer]
Campbell, B., Mortimore, C., and M. Jones, "SAML 2.0 Campbell, B., Mortimore, C., and M. Jones, "SAML 2.0
Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and
Authorization Grants", draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer (work Authorization Grants", draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer (work
in progress), March 2014. in progress), April 2014.
[OpenID.Discovery] [OpenID.Discovery]
Sakimura, N., Bradley, J., Jones, M., and E. Jay, "OpenID Sakimura, N., Bradley, J., Jones, M., and E. Jay, "OpenID
Connect Discovery 1.0", February 2014. Connect Discovery 1.0", February 2014.
[OpenID.Registration] [OpenID.Registration]
Sakimura, N., Bradley, J., and M. Jones, "OpenID Connect Sakimura, N., Bradley, J., and M. Jones, "OpenID Connect
Dynamic Client Registration 1.0", February 2014. Dynamic Client Registration 1.0", February 2014.
Appendix A. Acknowledgements Appendix A. Acknowledgements
This profile was derived from SAML 2.0 Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client This profile was derived from SAML 2.0 Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client
Authentication and Authorization Grants [I-D.ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer] Authentication and Authorization Grants [I-D.ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer]
by Brian Campbell and Chuck Mortimore. by Brian Campbell and Chuck Mortimore.
Appendix B. Document History Appendix B. 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 ]]
draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-09
o Clarified some text around the treatment of subject based on the
rough rough consensus from the thread staring at http://
www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg12630.html
draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-08 draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-08
o Updated references, including replacing references to RFC 4627 o Updated references, including replacing references to RFC 4627
with RFC 7159. with RFC 7159.
draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-07 draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-07
o Clean up language around subject per o Clean up language around subject per http://www.ietf.org/mail-
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg12250.html. archive/web/oauth/current/msg12250.html.
o As suggested in o As suggested in http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg12251.html /msg12251.html stated that "In the absence of an application
stated that "In the absence of an application profile specifying profile specifying otherwise, compliant applications MUST compare
otherwise, compliant applications MUST compare the audience values the audience values using the Simple String Comparison method
using the Simple String Comparison method defined in Section 6.2.1 defined in Section 6.2.1 of RFC 3986."
of RFC 3986."
o Added one-time use, maximum lifetime, and specific subject and o Added one-time use, maximum lifetime, and specific subject and
attribute requirements to Interoperability Considerations based on attribute requirements to Interoperability Considerations based on
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg12252.html. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg12252.html.
o Remove "or its subject confirmation requirements cannot be met" o Remove "or its subject confirmation requirements cannot be met"
text. text.
o Reword security considerations and mention that replay protection o Reword security considerations and mention that replay protection
is not mandated based on is not mandated based on http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg12259.html. oauth/current/msg12259.html.
-06 -06
o Stated that issuer and audience values SHOULD be compared using o Stated that issuer and audience values SHOULD be compared using
the Simple String Comparison method defined in Section 6.2.1 of the Simple String Comparison method defined in Section 6.2.1 of
RFC 3986 unless otherwise specified by the application. RFC 3986 unless otherwise specified by the application.
-05 -05
o Changed title from "JSON Web Token (JWT) Bearer Token Profiles for o Changed title from "JSON Web Token (JWT) Bearer Token Profiles for
OAuth 2.0" to "JSON Web Token (JWT) Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client OAuth 2.0" to "JSON Web Token (JWT) Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client
Authentication and Authorization Grants" to be more explicit about Authentication and Authorization Grants" to be more explicit about
the scope of the document per the scope of the document per http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg11063.html. /oauth/current/msg11063.html.
o Numbered the list of processing rules. o Numbered the list of processing rules.
o Smallish editorial cleanups to try and improve readability and o Smallish editorial cleanups to try and improve readability and
comprehensibility. comprehensibility.
o Cleaner split out of the processing rules in cases where they o Cleaner split out of the processing rules in cases where they
differ for client authentication and authorization grants. differ for client authentication and authorization grants.
o Clarified the parameters that are used/available for authorization o Clarified the parameters that are used/available for authorization
skipping to change at page 14, line 14 skipping to change at page 13, line 38
o Tracked specification name changes: "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization o Tracked specification name changes: "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization
Protocol" to "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework" and "OAuth Protocol" to "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework" and "OAuth
2.0 Assertion Profile" to "Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0". 2.0 Assertion Profile" to "Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0".
o Merged in changes between draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer-11 and o Merged in changes between draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer-11 and
draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer-13. All changes were strictly draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer-13. All changes were strictly
editorial. editorial.
-00 -00
o Created the initial IETF draft based upon o Created the initial IETF draft based upon draft-jones-oauth-jwt-
draft-jones-oauth-jwt-bearer-04 with no normative changes. bearer-04 with no normative changes.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
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/
Brian Campbell Brian Campbell
Ping Identity Ping Identity
Email: brian.d.campbell@gmail.com Email: brian.d.campbell@gmail.com
Chuck Mortimore Chuck Mortimore
Salesforce Salesforce
Email: cmortimore@salesforce.com Email: cmortimore@salesforce.com
 End of changes. 25 change blocks. 
68 lines changed or deleted 74 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/