Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer != access tokens (was Re: draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer Shepherd Write-up)
Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com> Fri, 25 April 2014 21:26 UTC
Return-Path: <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5A651A06B9 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 14:26:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.578
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.578 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8UW9By5niQQN for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 14:26:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na6sys009bog019.obsmtp.com (na6sys009bog019.obsmtp.com [74.125.150.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C6491A067C for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 14:26:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-f181.google.com ([209.85.213.181]) (using TLSv1) by na6sys009bob019.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKU1rS49Qzy5gD9fylUwM31hS8wswntV8L@postini.com; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 14:25:56 PDT
Received: by mail-ig0-f181.google.com with SMTP id h18so2718537igc.14 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 14:25:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=QLLhxiogj0cN2YtZi7Hihu9k2H0Y62ba6EnFqp6g8L4=; b=ZndLXECZt92dm/ELqCHfyX2KQ3MpDsrvRwnYfZeA84MEMt3acU9TmFkviDYysrlvEC EPWEgsFOwkUytSfvpmWDAEWxkwsoJ/XiP/kODvaflepVTHZ6cY8J/Z+cj4GOnHdbc+mH As8yqu8k2RPFibXvgafRH+2EUrnYSW7toOWrGP20a4fRRxuXyEr7ltUg9C5F0+NjCjKe cXKs5a6clN9IeHFKDSIquDwsG8FCGTemhrM4V3+bky7GAnqIKV4i/GHcXyppU5Bk2UmI Xg5DeauGFRItb7rGjIELFl3vMe7BU8Ep76zmAtJruy2VVvv8cDI7q0QJZQ1e5eEZm5ww boVw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnT3aH3zGIy1t3GfVMHWTqThQFknF0rBDLNhTixSIXw7YabuS1d7c4Jp7eLM1d7qE+mZddL3nh0MvbuB0Q8EA7VFddnaeM0YIQYD1DClH4B9o88hVRtKSGED9Eti0nVgfIP7E/k
X-Received: by 10.42.136.130 with SMTP id u2mr9299461ict.51.1398461155634; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 14:25:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.42.136.130 with SMTP id u2mr9299450ict.51.1398461155498; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 14:25:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.240.201 with HTTP; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 14:25:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <535ACDEB.3090906@redhat.com>
References: <CA+k3eCTeBZNh8-dhtkjbCJdJ6PfciZQNQOznJj+jdik6Z6Detw@mail.gmail.com> <535ABCBF.3090308@redhat.com> <CA+k3eCTzXS=aP8BQz2KL=0xht9wwtUEVwjgoYRjfmpy-n4HVuA@mail.gmail.com> <535ACDEB.3090906@redhat.com>
From: Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 15:25:25 -0600
Message-ID: <CA+k3eCTAMChu4d7h5AYS8+Lk+Y9dWTThLgKEmn3hFwtu51bdDQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bill Burke <bburke@redhat.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="90e6ba6e8c0667f41904f7e49cef"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/LUKEpBE6WqvxImcyhCtmELc87fQ
Cc: oauth <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer != access tokens (was Re: draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer Shepherd Write-up)
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 21:26:04 -0000
Well, OpenID Connect has a section register JWT claims so it can't be too premature: http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html#IANA However, private claims are often good enough for JWTs between a related AS and RS: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token-19#section-4.3 On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 3:04 PM, Bill Burke <bburke@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On 4/25/2014 4:12 PM, Brian Campbell wrote: > >> >> IHMO getting everyone to agree on the specific claims etc. needed for a >> standardized JWT access token is a bit of a rat's nest, which is why >> there's not been much progress in that area. >> >> > I guess any IANA registry submissions for new JWT claims is premature > until an RFC is out for JWT? Or are people writing drafts for their own > personal claims? > > Thanks. > > > -- > Bill Burke > JBoss, a division of Red Hat > http://bill.burkecentral.com >
- [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer != access … Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer != acc… Bill Burke
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer != acc… John Bradley
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer != acc… Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer != acc… Mike Jones
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer != acc… Bill Burke
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer != acc… Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer != acc… Mike Jones
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer != acc… Eve Maler