[OAUTH-WG] Proposed URN for JWT token type: urn:ietf:params:oauth:token-type:jwt

Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com> Tue, 01 May 2012 23:04 UTC

Return-Path: <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6374821E8042 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 May 2012 16:04:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.918
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.918 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.320, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7siPgYYKC046 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 May 2012 16:04:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from db3outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (db3ehsobe003.messaging.microsoft.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 793A921E8024 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 May 2012 16:04:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail111-db3-R.bigfish.com ( by DB3EHSOBE001.bigfish.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server id; Tue, 1 May 2012 23:04:31 +0000
Received: from mail111-db3 (localhost []) by mail111-db3-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16DFB380144 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 May 2012 23:04:31 +0000 (UTC)
X-SpamScore: -21
X-BigFish: VS-21(zzc85fh4015Izz1202hzz8275ch1033IL8275bh8275dhz2fh2a8h668h839hd25h)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:TK5EX14HUBC107.redmond.corp.microsoft.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
Received-SPF: pass (mail111-db3: domain of microsoft.com designates as permitted sender) client-ip=; envelope-from=Michael.Jones@microsoft.com; helo=TK5EX14HUBC107.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ; icrosoft.com ;
Received: from mail111-db3 (localhost.localdomain []) by mail111-db3 (MessageSwitch) id 1335913469823986_6839; Tue, 1 May 2012 23:04:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from DB3EHSMHS011.bigfish.com (unknown []) by mail111-db3.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4DE516009E for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 May 2012 23:04:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from TK5EX14HUBC107.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ( by DB3EHSMHS011.bigfish.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Tue, 1 May 2012 23:04:29 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([]) by TK5EX14HUBC107.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.005; Tue, 1 May 2012 23:04:33 +0000
From: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
To: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Proposed URN for JWT token type: urn:ietf:params:oauth:token-type:jwt
Thread-Index: Ac0n7r50FdrdHwkzRluns73GP1Xm7g==
Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 23:04:32 +0000
Message-ID: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B1680429673943664A485A@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B1680429673943664A485ATK5EX14MBXC284r_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed URN for JWT token type: urn:ietf:params:oauth:token-type: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: Tue, 01 May 2012 23:04:41 -0000

I'm editing the JWT spec to prepare for the OAuth WG version and to track changes in the JOSE specs.  Currently the "typ" values defined for JWT tokens are "JWT" and "http://openid.net/specs/jwt/1.0" (see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-json-web-token-08#section-5).  I believe that the URN value should be changed to use a URN taken from the OAuth URN namespace urn:ietf:params:oauth (defined in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-urn-sub-ns-02).

I propose to use the URN:

I believe this fits well with the other four uses of this namespace to date:

(The first two are from http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer-11.  The latter two are from http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-oauth-jwt-bearer-04.)

Do people agree with this URN choice?

                                                            -- Mike