One document matched: draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-08.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!-- This template is for creating an Internet Draft using xml2rfc,
which is available here: http://xml.resource.org. -->
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM 'rfc2629.dtd'>
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' 'rfc2629.xslt ?>
<!-- used by XSLT processors -->
<!-- For a complete list and description of processing instructions (PIs),
please see http://xml.resource.org/authoring/README.html. -->
<!-- Below are generally applicable Processing Instructions (PIs) that most I-Ds might want to use.
(Here they are set differently than their defaults in xml2rfc v1.32) -->
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<!-- give errors regarding ID-nits and DTD validation -->
<!-- control the table of contents (ToC) -->
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<!-- generate a ToC -->
<?rfc tocdepth="4"?>
<!-- the number of levels of subsections in ToC. default: 3 -->
<!-- control references -->
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<!-- use symbolic references tags, i.e, [RFC2119] instead of [1] -->
<?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?>
<!-- sort the reference entries alphabetically -->
<!-- control vertical white space
(using these PIs as follows is recommended by the RFC Editor) -->
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<!-- do not start each main section on a new page -->
<?rfc subcompact="no" ?>
<!-- keep one blank line between list items -->
<!-- end of list of popular I-D processing instructions -->
<rfc category="std" ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-08">
<!-- category values: std, bcp, info, exp, and historic
ipr values: full3667, noModification3667, noDerivatives3667
you can add the attributes updates="NNNN" and obsoletes="NNNN"
they will automatically be output with "(if approved)" -->
<!-- ***** FRONT MATTER ***** -->
<front>
<!-- The abbreviated title is used in the page header - it is only necessary if the
full title is longer than 39 characters -->
<title abbrev="OAuth JWT Assertion Profiles">JSON Web Token (JWT) Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants</title>
<!-- add 'role="editor"' below for the editors if appropriate -->
<author fullname="Michael B. Jones" surname="Jones" initials="M.B."> <!-- role="editor" -->
<organization>Microsoft</organization>
<address>
<email>mbj@microsoft.com</email>
<uri>http://self-issued.info/</uri>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Brian Campbell" initials="B." surname="Campbell">
<organization abbrev="Ping Identity">Ping Identity</organization>
<address>
<email>brian.d.campbell@gmail.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Chuck Mortimore" initials="C." surname="Mortimore">
<organization abbrev="Salesforce">Salesforce</organization>
<address>
<email>cmortimore@salesforce.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<date day="19" month="March" year="2014" />
<!-- If the month and year are both specified and are the current ones, xml2rfc will fill
in the current day for you. If only the current year is specified, xml2rfc will fill
in the current day and month for you. If the year is not the current one, it is
necessary to specify at least a month (xml2rfc assumes day="1" if not specified for the
purpose of calculating the expiry date). With drafts it is normally sufficient to
specify just the year. -->
<!-- Meta-data Declarations -->
<area>Security</area>
<workgroup>OAuth Working Group</workgroup>
<!-- WG name at the upperleft corner of the doc,
IETF is fine for individual submissions.
If this element is not present, the default is "Network Working Group",
which is used by the RFC Editor as a nod to the history of the IETF. -->
<keyword>OAuth</keyword>
<keyword>JWT</keyword>
<keyword>Assertion</keyword>
<keyword>Token</keyword>
<keyword>Security Token</keyword>
<!-- Keywords will be incorporated into HTML output
files in a meta tag but they have no effect on text or nroff
output. If you submit your draft to the RFC Editor, the
keywords will be used for the search engine. -->
<abstract>
<t>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 for use as a means of client authentication.
</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<middle>
<section title="Introduction" anchor="Introduction">
<t>
JSON Web Token (JWT) <xref target="JWT"/>
is a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) <xref target="RFC7159"/>
based security token encoding that enables
identity and security information to be shared across security
domains.
A security token is generally issued by an identity provider
and consumed by a relying party that relies on its content to
identify the token's subject for security related purposes.
</t>
<t>
The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework <xref target="RFC6749"/> provides
a method for making authenticated HTTP requests to a resource using an access token.
Access tokens are issued to third-party clients by an
authorization server (AS) with the (sometimes implicit) approval of the resource owner.
In OAuth, an authorization grant is an abstract term used to describe
intermediate credentials that represent the resource owner
authorization. An authorization grant is used by the client to obtain an access token.
Several authorization grant types are defined to support a wide range
of client types and user experiences.
OAuth also allows for the definition of new extension grant types
to support additional clients or to provide a bridge between OAuth and other trust frameworks.
Finally, OAuth allows the definition of additional authentication mechanisms to be used by clients when interacting with the authorization server.
</t>
<t>
The Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants
<xref target="I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions"/> specification
is an abstract extension to OAuth 2.0 that provides a general
framework for the use of Assertions (a.k.a. Security Tokens) as client credentials and/or authorization grants with OAuth 2.0.
This specification profiles the
Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants
<xref target="I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions"/> specification
to 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 as client credentials.
The format and processing rules for the JWT defined in this specification are intentionally similar,
though not identical, to those in the closely related
SAML 2.0 Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants
<xref target="I-D.ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer"/> specification.
</t>
<t>This document defines how a JSON Web Token (JWT) Bearer Token can be used to request an access token when a client wishes to utilize an existing trust
relationship, expressed through the semantics of
(and digital signature or keyed message digest calculated over) the JWT,
without a direct user approval step at the authorization server. It also defines how a JWT can be used as a client authentication mechanism.
The use of a security token for client
authentication is orthogonal to and separable from using a security token as an
authorization grant. They can be used either in combination or separately.
Client authentication using a JWT is nothing more than an alternative way for a client to authenticate
to the token endpoint and must be used in conjunction with some grant type to form a complete and
meaningful protocol request. JWT authorization grants may be used with or without client authentication
or identification. Whether or not client authentication is needed in conjunction with a JWT authorization
grant, as well as the supported types of client authentication, are policy decisions at the discretion of the authorization server.
</t>
<t>The process by which the client obtains the JWT, prior to exchanging it with the authorization server or using it for client authentication, is out of scope.</t>
<section title="Notational Conventions" anchor="NotationalConventions">
<t>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 <xref target="RFC2119"/>.
</t>
<t>
Unless otherwise noted, all the protocol parameter names and values are case sensitive.
</t>
</section>
<section title='Terminology' anchor='Terminology'>
<t>
All terms are as defined in
The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework <xref target="RFC6749"/>,
the Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants
<xref target="I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions"/>,
and the JSON Web Token (JWT) <xref target="JWT"/>
specifications.
</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="HTTP Parameter Bindings for Transporting Assertions" anchor="Transporting">
<t>
The Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants
<xref target="I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions"/> specification
defines generic HTTP parameters for transporting Assertions (a.k.a. Security Tokens)
during interactions with a token endpoint.
This section defines specific parameters and treatments of those parameters
for use with JWT bearer tokens.
</t>
<section title="Using JWTs as Authorization Grants" anchor="AuthGrants">
<t>
To use a Bearer JWT as an authorization grant, use an access token request as defined in
Section 4 of the
Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants
<xref target="I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions"/> specification
with the following specific parameter values and encodings.
</t>
<t>The value of the <spanx style='verb'>grant_type</spanx> parameter MUST be
<spanx style='verb'>urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:jwt-bearer</spanx>.</t>
<t>
The value of the <spanx style='verb'>assertion</spanx> parameter
MUST contain a single JWT.
</t>
<t>
The <spanx style='verb'>scope</spanx> parameter may be used, as defined in the
Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants
<xref target="I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions"/> specification, to indicate the requested scope.
</t>
<t>Authentication of the client is optional, as described in
Section 3.2.1 of OAuth 2.0 <xref target="RFC6749"/> and
consequently, the <spanx style='verb'>client_id</spanx> is only needed
when a form of client authentication that relies on the parameter is used.</t>
<t>The following non-normative example demonstrates an Access Token Request with a JWT as an authorization grant
(with extra line breaks for display purposes only):</t>
<figure>
<artwork><![CDATA[
POST /token.oauth2 HTTP/1.1
Host: as.example.com
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
grant_type=urn%3Aietf%3Aparams%3Aoauth%3Agrant-type%3Ajwt-bearer
&assertion=eyJhbGciOiJFUzI1NiJ9.
eyJpc3Mi[...omitted for brevity...].
J9l-ZhwP[...omitted for brevity...]
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</section>
<section title="Using JWTs for Client Authentication" anchor="ClientAuth">
<t>To use a JWT Bearer Token for client authentication, use the following parameter values and encodings.</t>
<t>The value of the <spanx style='verb'>client_assertion_type</spanx> parameter MUST be
<spanx style='verb'>urn:ietf:params:oauth:client-assertion-type:jwt-bearer</spanx>.</t>
<t>
The value of the <spanx style='verb'>client_assertion</spanx> parameter
MUST contain a single JWT.
</t>
<t>The following non-normative example demonstrates client
authentication using a JWT during the presentation of an authorization code grant in an
Access Token Request
(with extra line breaks for display purposes only):</t>
<figure>
<artwork><![CDATA[
POST /token.oauth2 HTTP/1.1
Host: as.example.com
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
grant_type=authorization_code&
code=vAZEIHjQTHuGgaSvyW9hO0RpusLzkvTOww3trZBxZpo&
client_assertion_type=urn%3Aietf%3Aparams%3Aoauth%3A
client-assertion-type%3Ajwt-bearer&
client_assertion=eyJhbGciOiJSUzI1NiJ9.
eyJpc3Mi[...omitted for brevity...].
cC4hiUPo[...omitted for brevity...]
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</section>
</section>
<section title="JWT Format and Processing Requirements" anchor="Processing">
<t>
In order to issue an access token response as described in
OAuth 2.0 <xref target="RFC6749"/>
or to rely on a JWT for client authentication,
the authorization server MUST validate the JWT according to the criteria below.
Application of additional restrictions and policy are at the discretion of the authorization server.
</t>
<t>
<list style="numbers">
<t>
The JWT MUST contain an <spanx style="verb">iss</spanx>
(issuer) claim that contains a unique identifier for the
entity that issued the JWT.
In the absence of an application profile specifying
otherwise, compliant applications MUST compare Issuer
values using the Simple String Comparison method defined in Section
6.2.1 of RFC 3986 <xref target="RFC3986"/>.
</t>
<t>
The JWT MUST contain a <spanx style="verb">sub</spanx>
(subject) claim identifying the
principal that is the subject of the JWT. Two cases need to
be differentiated:
<list style="letters">
<t>For the authorization grant, the subject SHOULD identify
an authorized accessor for whom the access token is being requested
(typically the resource owner, or an authorized delegate).</t>
<t>
For client authentication, the subject MUST be the
<spanx style='verb'>client_id</spanx> of the OAuth client.
</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>
The JWT MUST contain an <spanx style="verb">aud</spanx>
(audience) claim containing a value that
identifies the authorization server as an intended audience.
The token endpoint URL of the authorization server MAY be used as a
value for an <spanx style="verb">aud</spanx> element to identify
the authorization server as an intended audience of the JWT.
JWTs that do not identify the authorization server as an intended audience
MUST be rejected.
In the absence of an application profile specifying
otherwise, compliant applications MUST compare the audience
values using the Simple String Comparison method defined in Section
6.2.1 of RFC 3986 <xref target="RFC3986"/>.
</t>
<t>
The JWT MUST contain an <spanx style="verb">exp</spanx>
(expiration) claim that limits the time window during
which the JWT can be used. The authorization server
MUST verify that the expiration time has not passed,
subject to allowable clock skew between systems,
and reject expired JWTs. The
authorization server MAY reject JWTs with an <spanx
style="verb">exp</spanx> claim value that is
unreasonably far in the future.
</t>
<t>
The JWT MAY contain an <spanx style="verb">nbf</spanx>
(not before) claim that identifies the time before which
the token MUST NOT be accepted for processing.
</t>
<t>
The JWT MAY contain an <spanx style="verb">iat</spanx>
(issued at) claim that identifies the time at which the
JWT was issued. The authorization server MAY reject JWTs
with an <spanx style="verb">iat</spanx> claim value that is
unreasonably far in the past.
</t>
<t>
The JWT MAY contain a <spanx style="verb">jti</spanx>
(JWT ID) claim that provides a unique identifier for
the token.
The authorization server MAY ensure that JWTs are not
replayed by maintaining the set of used
<spanx style="verb">jti</spanx> values for the length of
time for which the JWT would be considered valid based
on the applicable <spanx style="verb">exp</spanx> instant.
</t>
<!-- No equivalent to SubjectConfirmation Method "urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:cm:bearer at present -->
<!-- No equivalent to SubjectConfirmationData Recipient at present -->
<!-- No equivalent to SubjectConfirmationData Address at present -->
<!-- No equivalent to AuthnStatement at present -->
<t>
The JWT MAY contain other claims.
</t>
<t>
The JWT MUST be digitally signed or have a keyed message digest applied
by the issuer. The authorization server
MUST reject JWTs with an invalid signature or keyed message digest.
</t>
<t>
The authorization server MUST verify that the JWT is
valid in all other respects per
JSON Web Token (JWT) <xref target="JWT"/>.
</t>
</list>
</t>
<section title="Authorization Grant Processing" anchor="GrantProcessing">
<t>
JWT authorization grants may be used with or without client authentication
or identification. Whether or not client authentication is needed in
conjunction with a JWT authorization grant, as well as the supported types
of client authentication, are policy decisions at the discretion of the
authorization server. However, if client credentials are present in
the request, the authorization server MUST validate them.
</t>
<t>If the JWT is not valid, or the current time is not within the token's valid time window for use, the
authorization server MUST construct an error response as defined in
OAuth 2.0 <xref target="RFC6749"/>.
The value of the <spanx style='verb'>error</spanx> parameter MUST be the
<spanx style='verb'>invalid_grant</spanx> error code. The authorization server
MAY include additional information regarding the reasons the JWT was considered invalid using the
<spanx style='verb'>error_description</spanx> or <spanx style='verb'>error_uri</spanx> parameters.
<figure>
<preamble>For example:</preamble>
<artwork><![CDATA[
HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
Content-Type: application/json
Cache-Control: no-store
{
"error":"invalid_grant",
"error_description":"Audience validation failed"
}
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</t>
</section>
<section title="Client Authentication Processing" anchor="ClientProcessing">
<t>If the client JWT is not valid, the
authorization server MUST construct an error response as defined in
OAuth 2.0 <xref target="RFC6749"/>.
The value of the <spanx style='verb'>error</spanx> parameter MUST be the
<spanx style='verb'>invalid_client</spanx> error code. The authorization server
MAY include additional information regarding the reasons the JWT was considered invalid using the
<spanx style='verb'>error_description</spanx> or <spanx style='verb'>error_uri</spanx> parameters.
</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Authorization Grant Example" anchor="GrantExample">
<t>Though non-normative, the following examples illustrate what a conforming JWT and access token request would look like.
</t>
<t>
The example shows a JWT issued and signed by the system entity identified as
<spanx style='verb'>https://jwt-idp.example.com</spanx>.
The subject of the JWT is identified by email address as <spanx style='verb'>mike@example.com</spanx>.
The intended audience of the JWT is <spanx style='verb'>https://jwt-rp.example.net</spanx>,
which is an identifier with which the authorization server identifies itself.
The JWT is sent as part of an access token request to the authorization server's
token endpoint at <spanx style='verb'>https://authz.example.net/token.oauth2</spanx>.
</t>
<figure>
<preamble>
Below is an example JSON object that could be encoded to
produce the JWT Claims Object for a JWT:
</preamble>
<artwork><![CDATA[
{"iss":"https://jwt-idp.example.com",
"sub":"mailto:mike@example.com",
"aud":"https://jwt-rp.example.net",
"nbf":1300815780,
"exp":1300819380,
"http://claims.example.com/member":true}
]]></artwork>
</figure>
<figure>
<preamble>
The following example JSON object, used as the header of a
JWT, declares that the JWT is signed with the ECDSA P-256
SHA-256 algorithm.
</preamble>
<artwork><![CDATA[
{"alg":"ES256"}
]]></artwork>
</figure>
<figure>
<preamble>
To present the JWT with the claims and header shown in the previous example as part of an access token request, for example,
the client might make the following HTTPS request
(with extra line breaks for display purposes only):
</preamble>
<artwork><![CDATA[
POST /token.oauth2 HTTP/1.1
Host: authz.example.net
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
grant_type=urn%3Aietf%3Aparams%3Aoauth%3Agrant-type%3Ajwt-bearer
&assertion=eyJhbGciOiJFUzI1NiJ9.
eyJpc3Mi[...omitted for brevity...].
J9l-ZhwP[...omitted for brevity...]
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</section>
<section anchor="Interoperability" title="Interoperability Considerations">
<t>
Agreement between system entities regarding identifiers,
keys, and endpoints is required in order to achieve interoperable
deployments of this profile. Specific items that require agreement are as follows:
values for the issuer and audience identifiers, the location of the token endpoint, the key used to
apply and verify the digital signature or keyed message digest over the JWT, one-time use restrictions on JWT,
maximum JWT lifetime allowed, and the specific subject and claim requirements of the JWT.
The exchange of such information is explicitly out of scope for this specification.
In some cases, additional profiles may be created that constrain or prescribe these values or specify
how they are to be exchanged.
Examples of such profiles include
the OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration Core Protocol <xref target="I-D.ietf-oauth-dyn-reg"/>,
OpenID Connect Dynamic Client Registration 1.0 <xref target="OpenID.Registration"/>,
and OpenID Connect Discovery 1.0 <xref target="OpenID.Discovery"/>.
</t>
</section>
<section anchor="Security" title="Security Considerations">
<!--<t>All drafts are required to have a security considerations section.
See
<xref target="RFC3552">RFC 3552</xref>
for a guide.
</t> -->
<t>
The security considerations described within the Assertion Framework for
OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants <xref target="I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions"/>,
The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework <xref target="RFC6749"/>, and the JSON Web Token (JWT) <xref target="JWT"/>
specifications are all applicable to this document.
</t><t>
The specification does not mandate replay protection for the JWT
usage for either the authorization grant or for client
authentication. It is an optional feature, which implementations may employ at their own discretion.
</t>
<!-- "8. Security considerations - you could probably just refer to the core
OAuth spec and to the SAML spec here, but see RFC 3552 for insights." - Peter Saint-Andre -->
</section>
<section title='IANA Considerations' anchor="IANA">
<section title='Sub-Namespace Registration of urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:jwt-bearer'
anchor="grant-type_reg">
<t>
This specification registers the value
<spanx style='verb'>grant-type:jwt-bearer</spanx> in the
IANA urn:ietf:params:oauth registry established in
An IETF URN Sub-Namespace for OAuth <xref target="RFC6755"/>.
<list style='symbols'>
<t>URN: urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:jwt-bearer</t>
<t>Common Name: JWT Bearer Token Grant Type Profile for OAuth 2.0</t>
<t>Change controller: IETF</t>
<t>Specification Document: [[this document]]</t>
</list>
</t>
</section>
<section title='Sub-Namespace Registration of urn:ietf:params:oauth:client-assertion-type:jwt-bearer'
anchor="client-assertion-type_reg">
<t>
This specification registers the value
<spanx style='verb'>client-assertion-type:jwt-bearer</spanx> in the
IANA urn:ietf:params:oauth registry established in
An IETF URN Sub-Namespace for OAuth <xref target="RFC6755"/>.
<list style='symbols'>
<t>URN: urn:ietf:params:oauth:client-assertion-type:jwt-bearer</t>
<t>Common Name: JWT Bearer Token Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication </t>
<t>Change controller: IETF</t>
<t>Specification Document: [[this document]]</t>
</list>
</t>
</section>
</section>
</middle>
<!-- *****BACK MATTER ***** -->
<back>
<!-- References split into informative and normative -->
<!-- see http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html#policy.refs -->
<!-- There are 2 ways to insert reference entries from the citation libraries:
1. define an ENTITY at the top, and use "ampersand character"RFC2629; here (as shown)
2. simply use a PI "less than character"?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119.xml"?> here
(for I-Ds: include="reference.I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis.xml")
Both are cited textually in the same manner: by using xref elements.
If you use the PI option, xml2rfc will, by default, try to find included files in the same
directory as the including file. You can also define the XML_LIBRARY environment variable
with a value containing a set of directories to search. These can be either in the local
filing system or remote ones accessed by http (http://domain/dir/... ).-->
<references title="Normative References">
<?rfc include='http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml' ?>
<?rfc include='http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3986.xml' ?>
<?rfc include='http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6749.xml' ?>
<?rfc include='http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6755.xml' ?>
<?rfc include='http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7159.xml' ?>
<reference anchor="I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions">
<front>
<title abbrev="OAuth Assertion Framework">Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants</title>
<author fullname="Brian Campbell" initials="B." surname="Campbell">
<organization abbrev="Ping Identity">Ping Identity</organization>
</author>
<author fullname="Chuck Mortimore" initials="C." surname="Mortimore">
<organization abbrev="Salesforce">Salesforce.com</organization>
</author>
<author fullname="Michael B. Jones" initials="M.B." surname="Jones">
<organization abbrev="Microsoft">Microsoft</organization>
</author>
<author fullname="Yaron Y. Goland" initials="Y.Y." surname="Goland">
<organization abbrev="Microsoft">Microsoft</organization>
</author>
<date day="19" month="March" year="2014" />
</front>
<seriesInfo value="draft-ietf-oauth-assertions" name="Internet-Draft"/>
<format target="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-assertions"
type="HTML"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="JWT">
<front>
<title>JSON Web Token (JWT)</title>
<author fullname="Michael B. Jones" initials="M.B." surname="Jones">
<organization>Microsoft</organization>
<address>
<email>mbj@microsoft.com</email>
<uri>http://self-issued.info/</uri>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="John Bradley" initials="J." surname="Bradley">
<organization abbrev="Ping Identity">Ping Identity</organization>
<address>
<email>ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Nat Sakimura" initials="N." surname="Sakimura">
<organization abbrev="NRI">Nomura Research Institute</organization>
<address>
<email>n-sakimura@nri.co.jp</email>
</address>
</author>
<date day="18" month="March" year="2014"/>
</front>
<seriesInfo value="draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token" name="Internet-Draft"/>
<format target="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token" type="HTML" />
</reference>
</references>
<references title="Informative References">
<?rfc include='http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-16.xml' ?>
<reference anchor="I-D.ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer">
<front>
<title abbrev="OAuth SAML Assertion Profiles">SAML 2.0 Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants</title>
<author fullname="Brian Campbell" initials="B." surname="Campbell">
<organization abbrev="Ping Identity">Ping Identity</organization>
</author>
<author fullname="Chuck Mortimore" initials="C." surname="Mortimore">
<organization abbrev="Salesforce">Salesforce.com</organization>
</author>
<author fullname="Michael B. Jones" surname="Jones" initials="M.B.">
<organization>Microsoft</organization>
</author>
<date day="19" month="March" year="2014" />
</front>
<seriesInfo value="draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer" name="Internet-Draft"/>
<format target="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer"
type="HTML"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="OpenID.Registration">
<front>
<title>OpenID Connect Dynamic Client Registration 1.0</title>
<author fullname="Nat Sakimura" initials="N." surname="Sakimura">
<organization abbrev="NRI">Nomura Research Institute, Ltd.</organization>
</author>
<author fullname="John Bradley" initials="J." surname="Bradley">
<organization abbrev="Ping Identity">Ping Identity</organization>
</author>
<author fullname="Michael B. Jones" initials="M.B." surname="Jones">
<organization abbrev="Microsoft">Microsoft</organization>
</author>
<date day="25" month="February" year="2014"/>
</front>
<format target="http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-registration-1_0.html"
type="HTML" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="OpenID.Discovery">
<front>
<title>OpenID Connect Discovery 1.0</title>
<author fullname="Nat Sakimura" initials="N." surname="Sakimura">
<organization abbrev="NRI">Nomura Research Institute, Ltd.</organization>
</author>
<author fullname="John Bradley" initials="J." surname="Bradley">
<organization abbrev="Ping Identity">Ping Identity</organization>
</author>
<author fullname="Michael B. Jones" initials="M.B." surname="Jones">
<organization abbrev="Microsoft">Microsoft</organization>
</author>
<author fullname="Edmund Jay" initials="E." surname="Jay">
<organization abbrev="Illumila">Illumila</organization>
</author>
<date day="25" month="February" year="2014"/>
</front>
<format target="http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-discovery-1_0.html"
type="HTML" />
</reference>
</references>
<section title='Acknowledgements' anchor='Acknowledgements'>
<t>
This profile was derived from
SAML 2.0 Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants
<xref target="I-D.ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer"/>
by Brian Campbell and Chuck Mortimore.
</t>
</section>
<section title='Document History' anchor='History'>
<t>
[[ to be removed by the RFC editor before publication as an RFC ]]
</t>
<t>
draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-08
<list style='symbols'>
<t>
Updated references, including replacing references to RFC 4627 with RFC 7159.
</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>
draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-07
<list style='symbols'>
<t>Clean up language around subject per http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg12250.html.</t>
<t>As suggested in http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg12251.html stated that
"In the absence of an application profile specifying
otherwise, compliant applications MUST compare the audience
values using the Simple String Comparison method defined in Section
6.2.1 of RFC 3986."
</t>
<t>Added one-time use, maximum lifetime, and specific subject and attribute requirements to Interoperability Considerations based on http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg12252.html.</t>
<t>Remove "or its subject confirmation requirements cannot be met" text.</t>
<t>Reword security considerations and mention that replay protection is not mandated based on http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg12259.html.</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>
-06
<list style='symbols'>
<t>
Stated that issuer and audience values
SHOULD be compared using the
Simple String Comparison method defined in
Section 6.2.1 of RFC 3986
unless otherwise specified by the application.
</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>
-05
<list style='symbols'>
<t>
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 Authentication and Authorization Grants"
to be more explicit about the scope of the document per
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg11063.html.
</t>
<t>
Numbered the list of processing rules.
</t>
<t>
Smallish editorial cleanups to try and improve readability and comprehensibility.
</t>
<t>
Cleaner split out of the processing rules in cases where they differ
for client authentication and authorization grants.
</t>
<t>
Clarified the parameters that are used/available for authorization grants.
</t>
<t>
Added Interoperability Considerations section.
</t>
<t>
Added more explanatory context to the example in Section 4.
</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>
-04
<list style='symbols'>
<t>
Changed the name of the <spanx style="verb">prn</spanx> claim
to <spanx style="verb">sub</spanx> (subject)
both to more closely align with SAML name usage
and to use a more intuitive name.
</t>
<t>
Added seriesInfo information to Internet Draft references.
</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>
-03
<list style='symbols'>
<t>Reference RFC 6749 and RFC 6755.</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>
-02
<list style='symbols'>
<t>Add more text to intro explaining that an assertion/JWT grant type can be used with or without client
authentication/identification and that client assertion/JWT authentication is nothing more than an alternative way for a client to authenticate to the token endpoint</t>
<t>Add examples to Sections 2.1 and 2.2</t>
<t>Update references</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>
-01
<list style='symbols'>
<t>
Tracked specification name changes:
"The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Protocol" to "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework" and
"OAuth 2.0 Assertion Profile" to "Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0".
</t>
<t>
Merged in changes between draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer-11
and draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer-13.
All changes were strictly editorial.
</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>
-00
<list style='symbols'>
<t>
Created the initial IETF draft based upon
draft-jones-oauth-jwt-bearer-04 with no normative
changes.
</t>
</list>
</t>
</section>
</back>
</rfc>
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 10:56:37 |