Re: [OAUTH-WG] "cid" claim in JWT
John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> Thu, 20 December 2012 02:25 UTC
Return-Path: <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39E5321F89E8 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 18:25:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.327
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.327 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.271, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7F9hRjei1+z1 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 18:25:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yh0-f46.google.com (mail-yh0-f46.google.com [209.85.213.46]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC79221F87D2 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 18:25:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yh0-f46.google.com with SMTP id m54so672895yhm.33 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 18:25:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :cc:message-id:references:to:x-mailer:x-gm-message-state; bh=f8GFi13U+NN/OZq8fGDMlQDqmaKfju22AwTgEipTxBI=; b=L+zQ3L8RV4ZU6GId6pWubblfXiIUOLjMBnl5kwgQmflT2Vss5y3IC3MJlckW1uwRGJ eQ+EFoiZuCXt8utTJW8U5MRTSChBd6+SrAQA0/219ur5/2ardf9YBYMLppXm4c9E1rOW 7uw8qWXznLKaIyxST1lpkYyT4CXqijDsA0AZyQHNHZkgrahqTj2Z9lNTUZJxWiZ1vJ6N XD4wLdt5NzyxVsDi/Xro2XBBB2izBQhspDgfd4XhNDhz3Fc/8hS0C90j+SInfOvr42kr Svz/0fYI0g7DZiImndUjC5dNW57bh39o95T7seq1vVY7rTZCCc8wxWP5nuD1rZOqNY9K OyeA==
X-Received: by 10.236.128.77 with SMTP id e53mr7609484yhi.127.1355970326216; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 18:25:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.211] (190-20-21-85.baf.movistar.cl. [190.20.21.85]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d66sm6412043yhe.1.2012.12.19.18.25.21 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 19 Dec 2012 18:25:25 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_99B27F65-04E7-448E-84ED-A4289F501757"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
In-Reply-To: <31476ed163f348a1a1a80e57ee75c1ce@BY2PR03MB041.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 23:25:15 -0300
Message-Id: <7C676625-BB10-485E-80C8-2205CCDF38E2@ve7jtb.com>
References: <CABzCy2CwBr0wgJRamwpQy7gxpzK0=RuanPxOaBCPXK7Jwk6dfw@mail.gmail.com> <31476ed163f348a1a1a80e57ee75c1ce@BY2PR03MB041.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
To: Anthony Nadalin <tonynad@microsoft.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlSrPzyIMIFIpTPKzA4boNF08skNWOD2n4RWy1mlGgYU9oVjxy5nzX/yORFfzGMsLaGjpmA
Cc: oauth <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] "cid" claim in JWT
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth>
List-Post: <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 02:25:37 -0000
I agree, audience who requested it and and who it is requested for are all interrelated. However we do need to set down some standard way of expressing it as people are starting to make stuff up on their own that will impact interoperability. If Google starts thawing in cid and clients don't know about it they must reject the JWT etc. John On 2012-12-19, at 9:40 PM, Anthony Nadalin <tonynad@microsoft.com> wrote: > It seems premature and we should consider this in the bigger context of the “on behalf of”/delegation work that has been started > > From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Nat Sakimura > Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 6:22 PM > To: oauth > Subject: [OAUTH-WG] "cid" claim in JWT > > In OpenID Connect WG, we have been talking this for sometime. > "cid" claim identifies the entity that the JWT was issued to as a rightful/licensed user. > Google already uses this in their implementation of id_token of OIDC. > > Here is the text proposal. It introduces two new standard claims: "cid" and "cit". > > It would be very useful in creating a HoK drafts as well. > > Cheers, > > Nat > > > 4.1.9. "cid" Client Identification Data Claim > > The "cid" (client identification data) claim allows the receiver > of the JWT to identify the entity that the JWT is > intended to be used by. The audience of the JWT MUST be > able to identify the client with the value of this claim. > > The "cid" value is a case sensitive string containing a StringOrURI value. > This claim is OPTIONAL. If the entity processing the claim does not > identify the user of the JWT with the identifier in the "cid" claim value, > then the JWT MUST be rejected. The interpretation of the registered to > value is generally application specific. > > A typical example of a registered to claim includes following: > * client_id that the audience can use to authenticate and > identify the client. > * A base64url encoded JWK. > * A URL that points to the key material that the audience can use to > authenticate the user of the JWT. > > 4.1.10 "cit" (Client Identification Data claim type) > > The "cit" (Client Identification Data claim type) identifies the type > of the "cid" claim. It is a StringOrURI value. The defined values > are the following: > > "client_id" The value of the "cid" claim is the Client ID of the client > that the audience of the JWT is able to use to authenticate the client. > > "jwk" The value of the "cid" claim is a base64url encoded JWK of > the registered client. > > "jku" The value of the "cid" claim is the "jku" defined in 4.1.2 of > JSON web signature [JWS]. > > "x5u" The value of the "cid" claim is the URL that points to the public > key certificate of the registered client. The format of the content > that x5u points to is described in section 4.1.4 of the JSON Web Signature. > > -- > Nat Sakimura (=nat) > Chairman, OpenID Foundation > http://nat.sakimura.org/ > @_nat_en > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
- [OAUTH-WG] "cid" claim in JWT Nat Sakimura
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] "cid" claim in JWT Anthony Nadalin
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] "cid" claim in JWT John Bradley
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] "cid" claim in JWT Mike Jones
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] "cid" claim in JWT Nat Sakimura
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] "cid" claim in JWT Nat Sakimura
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] "cid" claim in JWT Mike Jones
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] "cid" claim in JWT Nat Sakimura
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] "cid" claim in JWT Mike Jones
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] "cid" claim in JWT Anthony Nadalin
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] "cid" claim in JWT Nat Sakimura
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] "cid" claim in JWT Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] "cid" claim in JWT Nat Sakimura
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] "cid" claim in JWT Mike Jones