Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-access-token-jwt-08 question

Logan Widick <> Tue, 22 September 2020 02:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C14F43A10DF for <>; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 19:09:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.854
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.854 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=0.001, NUMERIC_HTTP_ADDR=1.242, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oyVclGNvNNRC for <>; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 19:09:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C26A3A10DE for <>; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 19:09:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id y8so15464970ilm.11 for <>; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 19:09:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=HjEBjXU7NKgVGkykeHCGfwWlvACEYPoNI9HTxrmgQCE=; b=LVjfxcX0g96Q3xdCaR4cJVqAb76ZfIV88HL/jfSdsJbW+tIGTHJtkdrkmabS5eWAFK bEzRwRAdg+qZ0xh2Hlzu+rw3I1oXxUFZDCWKojY7Z2yWPp1LB/zx3edpCVomCzNPlQ+z wmlcXJwfz/A3TV0K3A/3QHnOjtWHhfaC1Jk9h4FbESgMt8ekXaLMWR2UhgknmWXfwHGQ XLVKhqTzKO79HW0TrZukUcUmcAYlbD3mfYxXTAlGsKEGJjkIm3MRyels9LHAhlwWX0t3 2z/Cr8L9Ldw6TVYb+roRab9KbxL5r3kpNuv4ZZWPJsq80+L41B0fuLqqJunbpyDNg64w ljDg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=HjEBjXU7NKgVGkykeHCGfwWlvACEYPoNI9HTxrmgQCE=; b=YpH3oto3zKL0fylwmDVzKxDhQ8xdmg6czAwOsvoKoC6JRyAZWRfnWv5V82063BpCs/ pohlfdJm6na/8WMXQa7OBfvQ1gQ6yec63heVCX4elLSxg0Q/ilvch04YhSdemeCwwW46 cYZI0kvh1mEB79+NP0XzHUo3Fc44UroEbuUNHuz7lwnjFQBhthzL2DSSS+nogj+qdweI CYZesu2O2Ua7NisRiLJ7Lz62oMmJh9cFwnsrE2H2VoLAB04fbUoW8vvBmUw5o3zzF9OF H6B6v9urVR9w/qoWUDPphfU3xmYPTF5Swzw1VbcF1wLcWJqItqhrk661GUhXBYnpuMx2 YYPA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530xBgbt4IXSZ6NbIHIxvxqVr7zUHAPk98XpCP2yL5Ih3D7zUl/N qYig/+aBy6/BlXx1jms/ew7fn5YmclR++DUPPY0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzTDdaEo5wJVU10AUItDzJfnqcFzIlcy9ZkYDvGSz/s9wX8VtOq2CFwrOaMLmXAT5yAtKh5f0NtcmvQPC129eo=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:d0c7:: with SMTP id y7mr2538324ila.250.1600740575119; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 19:09:35 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Logan Widick <>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 22:09:23 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Brian Campbell <>
Cc: Vittorio Bertocci <>,
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005b941105afdd75aa"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-access-token-jwt-08 question
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 02:09:38 -0000

If I understand "The intent would be to present that information in the
same way you would when querying a users/<id>, encoded in claims" correctly,
the "roles", "groups", and "entitlements" claims are the same types as the
"roles", "groups", and "entitlements" attributes of the User resource
schema (pages 24-25 of RFC 7643 for the text; pages 63-67 of RFC 7643 for
the schema)? In the schema the attributes are all "complex" (object) type
and "multivalued" (array of), although the text for some of these
attributes has some "No vocabulary or syntax..." remarks.

If that understanding is correct, it might be a good idea to replace the
references to "RFC 7643", "Section 4.1.2 of RFC 7643", and "RFC 7643,
Section 4.1.2" with something more specific like "the ____ attribute(s) of
the User resource schema from Section 4.1.2 of RFC 7643".

On Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 15:33 Brian Campbell <>

> At some point I'm going to be among the lucky few who will be asked to
> review the JWT claims registration request. One of the criteria to consider
> is "whether the registration description is clear" and Logan's questions
> suggest that perhaps the descriptions of these claims are not sufficiently
> clear. My assumption was that the claim value for "roles", "groups" and
> "entitlements" was going to be an array of strings. Trying to validate my
> assumption, I went looking at the text in
> and
> and followed the reference to
> and, honestly, it
> wasn't particularly clear to me. Maybe it's my lack of familiarity with the
> details of SCIM and the language of RFC 7643. But I think that, for the
> sake of clarity and interoperability, some additional specificity is
> needed.
> Side note: the "Section of [[this specification]]" references in
> are problmatic (there is no such section in this document) and probably
> should be to
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 6:28 PM Vittorio Bertocci <vittorio.bertocci=
>> wrote:
>> Hi Logan,
>> Thanks for the note.
>> The intent would be to present that information in the same way you would
>> when querying a users/<id>, encoded in claims; hence groups would be a list
>> of values representing  what groups the subject belongs to, rather than a
>> list of full group definitions (with all the other members belonging to
>> them, for example) which would go beyond the intended use of the
>> information (supplying authorization information about the subject).
>> I tried to keep the language high level as I didn’t want to duplicate
>> SCIM guidance, or inadvertently narrow down the options products have to
>> implement this.  If you think this is too vague, we can try to be more
>> specific.
>> *From: *OAuth <> on behalf of Logan Widick <
>> *Date: *Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 14:21
>> *To: *"" <>
>> *Subject: *[OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-access-token-jwt-08 question
>> I took a look at Section Claims for Authorization Outside of
>> Delegation Scenarios (
>> and I do not understand what exactly the formats of the "roles", "groups",
>> and "entitlements" claims will be.
>> Will the "roles" claim be an array of strings (role names, IDs, or
>> links), an array of the "roles" objects from the SCIM User schema (pages
>> 66-67 of RFC 7643), or something else?
>> Will the "groups" claim be an array of strings (group names, IDs, or
>> links), an array of the "groups" objects from the SCIM User schema (pages
>> 63-64 of RFC 7643), an array of SCIM Group schema objects (pages 69-70 of
>> RFC 7643), or something else?
>> Will the "entitlements" claim be an array of strings (entitlement names,
>> IDs, or links), an array of the "entitlements" objects from the SCIM User
>> schema (pages 65-66 of RFC 7643), or something else?
>> Sincerely,
>> Logan Widick
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
> *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and
> privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any
> review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited.
> If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender
> immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from
> your computer. Thank you.*