Re: [OAUTH-WG] Conflicting definitions in JWT Response for OAuth Token Introspection

Sorry, i meant - is top level jti required as well?

S pozdravem,
*Filip Skokan*

On Wed, 4 Mar 2020 at 19:15, Filip Skokan <panva.ip@gmail.com> wrote:

> Torsten, let's make sure we call out the required top level JWT claims -
> iss, iat, aud, what else? is top level iat required as well?
>
> S pozdravem,
> *Filip Skokan*
>
>
> On Wed, 4 Mar 2020 at 17:19, Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> based on the recent feedback, Vladimir and I propose the following
>> changes to draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-introspection-response:
>>
>> - the token data are encapsulated in a container element “_token_data”
>> - beyond this, the top-level container only contains meta data pertinent
>> to the JWT representing the signed (encrypted) introspection response
>> - we need to add text to the spec to point out that replay detection must
>> be based on the jti in the “_token_data” container not the top level claim
>>
>> That’s example of how it would look like:
>>
>> {
>>    "iss":"https://as.example-bank.com",
>>    "aud":"6a256bca-1e0b-4b0c-84fe-c9f78e0cb4a3",
>>    "iat":1532452100,
>>    "_token_data":{
>>       "active":true,
>>       "iss":"https://as.example-bank.com",
>>       "aud":"6a256bca-1e0b-4b0c-84fe-c9f78e0cb4a3",
>>       "jti":"53304e8a-a81e-4bc7-95e3-3b298d283512",
>>       "iat":1532452084,
>>       "exp":1532453100,
>>       "client_id":"3630BF72-E979-477A-A8FF-8A338F07C852",
>>       "cnf":{
>>          "x5t#S256":"YzEcNvUV3QXA5Bi9IB66b8psyqZBQgW4500ZGvNRdis"
>>       },
>>       "sub":"123456789087632345678"
>>    }
>> }
>>
>> The response for inactive tokens would look like this:
>>
>> {
>>    "iss":"https://as.example-bank.com",
>>    "aud":"6a256bca-1e0b-4b0c-84fe-c9f78e0cb4a3",
>>    "iat":1532452100,
>>    "_token_data":{
>>       "active":false
>>    }
>> }
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> best regards,
>> Torsten.
>>
>> > On 4. Mar 2020, at 16:37, Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> > +1, this encapsulation is much cleaner.
>> >
>> >> On Mar 2, 2020, at 2:25 AM, Filip Skokan <panva.ip@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Perhaps we should consider leaving the root level JWT claims as-is per
>> JWT and push the introspection response unmodified as if it was regular
>> json response to a JWT claim called "introspection". Since regular
>> introspection uses the same claim names as JWT this would get around all
>> the conflicts.
>> >>
>> >> Last time i brought it up the authors didn't want to consider it
>> because of existing implementations.
>> >>
>> >> S pozdravem,
>> >> Filip Skokan
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 at 07:52, Takahiko Kawasaki <taka@authlete.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> Thank you, Tatsuo Kudo, for showing me that Justin Richer expressed
>> the same concerns in this mailing list about 6 months ago (on Sep. 4,
>> 2019). RFC 8707 didn't exist then, though.
>> >>
>> >> Re: [OAUTH-WG] Question regarding
>> draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-introspection-response-05
>> >>
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/LmMAxd35gW5Yox0j4MmU2rI_eUA/
>> >>
>> >> A JWT puts both (a) information about itself and (b) other data in its
>> payload part. When the "other data" have the same claim names as are used
>> to express information about the JWT itself, conflicts happen.
>> >>
>> >> Also, it should be noted that Ben pointed out in other thread that the
>> requirement for "jti" in draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-introspection-response, which
>> says "jti" is a unique identifier for the access token that MUST be stable
>> for all introspection calls, contradicts the definition of "jti", which
>> should be unique for each JWT.
>> >>
>> >> Re: [OAUTH-WG] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on
>> draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-introspection-response-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>> >>
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/S4q7cF0TMZMzFO61I5M4QXCUWCM/
>> >>
>> >> draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-introspection-response needs to be modified to
>> solve the conflicts.
>> >>
>> >> Taka
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 4:10 PM Takahiko Kawasaki <taka@authlete..com>
>> wrote:
>> >> Hello,
>> >>
>> >> I'm wondering if the following conflicts in "JWT Response for OAuth
>> Token Introspection" (draft 8) have already been pointed out.
>> >>
>> >> RFC 8707 (Resource Indicators for OAuth 2.0) requires that 'aud' in an
>> introspection response hold the values of the 'resource' request
>> parameters, whereas "JWT Response for OAuth Token Introspection" says that
>> 'aud' MUST identify the resource server receiving the token introspection
>> response. The definitions conflict.
>> >>
>> >> RFC 7662 (OAuth 2.0 Token Introspection) requires that 'iat' in an
>> introspection response indicate when the access/refresh token was issued,
>> whereas "JWT Response for OAuth Token Introspection" says that 'iat'
>> indicates when the introspection response in JWT format was issued. The
>> definitions conflict.
>> >>
>> >> Best Regards,
>> >> Takahiko Kawasaki
>> >> Authlete, Inc.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> OAuth mailing list
>> >> OAuth@ietf.org
>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> OAuth mailing list
>> >> OAuth@ietf.org
>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > OAuth mailing list
>> > OAuth@ietf.org
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>
>>