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

Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com> Wed, 02 May 2012 12:25 UTC

Return-Path: <bcampbell@pingidentity.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 902B421F888F for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 May 2012 05:25:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.945
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.945 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.032, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MhRg-5LnIsOQ for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 May 2012 05:25:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na3sys009aog118.obsmtp.com (na3sys009aog118.obsmtp.com [74.125.149.244]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72C5321F888E for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 May 2012 05:25:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vx0-f182.google.com ([209.85.220.182]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob118.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT6Enrh7gouQCnCmMnYm6MkVe53/r+M5x@postini.com; Wed, 02 May 2012 05:25:19 PDT
Received: by vcmm1 with SMTP id m1so459143vcm.13 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 02 May 2012 05:25:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=OGSCfmNpViG3iMWwRnG0zV7VYnSdHpXR9cw6ePVO+us=; b=XoIipKxupfKpJQ2PT2AhwjJc6xCJyqh7ChhRT7xMO7q4JWe9eUUwoMuldPd6ivh9Bo IjbDX9fLnzkEbQbjk/y70EENNCLexOw5kl/Kat46HAQY6eQzuscQg22EDL3JBN9eQrSc yOMDhtyv0S2bRsoZQ6t8UAYAk5jmsHiKQqh27Qxwdym5RFnlbXxFQQB1yz8Ul0lSmvsF KWwn8fXCOoTw9nXtsKhgl0535FxrLzdidGMeYhl4PwTFij2HAoIa/7OvUfIVSMUDC2l6 r3gVqQAwgF3ykGEwGmOBzttDBOt6o/fusBnJugDHsOlJRmFcjoZpIGyHE2Rx1z8zwdu1 tmSw==
Received: by 10.52.96.169 with SMTP id dt9mr24813298vdb.107.1335961518252; Wed, 02 May 2012 05:25:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.38.104 with HTTP; Wed, 2 May 2012 05:24:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B1680429673943664A4AF4@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B1680429673943664A485A@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <CA+k3eCR7krjyGLmaHrutoq8_xKTMFwug-1q+VhO4Nk6gwtTpjQ@mail.gmail.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B1680429673943664A4AF4@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
From: Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 06:24:48 -0600
Message-ID: <CA+k3eCTHaF5rku6MnLmb0BNtj1XMHCooOx19eFcDjGYPxrwnKw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQndcdRWaPNm7mzx7gfhGY/tllB9dQkZ4lxoPBLpKrqk0HbPmo0gqHGWi2usJ1e/ZS7Cx39x
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [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: Wed, 02 May 2012 12:25:21 -0000

I agree that context does sufficiently differentiate. I guess I'm just
lamenting the way that type has been overloaded in the base OAuth
stuff and am already dreading the conversions that might go something
like, "well which type of token type are we talking about here?"

This particular URN probably doesn't change that one way or the other
and I'm okay with what you've proposed. I just felt compelled to
mention the potential confusion point.

On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com> wrote:
> I understand what you're saying, but I still believe that the URN is the correct one.
>
> While I agree that the potential for confusion is unfortunate, context will actually successfully differentiate the two uses of similar terms.  Bear in mind that the OAuth usage of the term is actually short for "Access Token Type" (see OAuth Core sections 8.1 and 11.1), whereas the URN above is to provide a type identifier for a particular kind of security token.
>
> I also believe that the examples in the Bearer spec (see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-19#section-4), the MAC spec (see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-v2-http-mac-01#section-5.1), and the JWT spec will make the uses of these terms clear to implementers in context.
>
>                                -- Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Campbell [mailto:bcampbell@pingidentity.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 4:26 PM
> To: Mike Jones
> Cc: oauth@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed URN for JWT token type: urn:ietf:params:oauth:token-type:jwt
>
> The only concern I might raise with it is that use of the "token-type"
> part might lead to some confusion. The term token type and the parameter token_type are already pretty loaded and have specific meaning from the core OAuth framework:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-v2-26#section-7.1
>
> That token type is about providing "the client with the information required to successfully utilize the access token to make a protected resource request" (i.e. mac and bearer) and is not about the structure of the token itself which is what this URI seems to want to describe.
> JWTs are usually thought of as bearer type tokens but might someday have HoK (http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/Week-of-Mon-20120430/001860.html)
> or mac like constructs.
>
> I don't think there's really a problem with name collisions here but I think that the current use of token type in the frame work spec is already the cause of some confusion and I'd hate to exacerbate that.
>
> On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> 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:
>>
>>                urn:ietf:params:oauth:token-type:jwt
>>
>>
>>
>> I believe this fits well with the other four uses of this namespace to date:
>>
>>                urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:saml2-bearer
>>
>>
>> urn:ietf:params:oauth:client-assertion-type:saml2-bearer
>>
>>                urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:jwt-bearer
>>
>>                urn:ietf:params:oauth:client-assertion-type:jwt-bearer
>>
>>
>>
>> (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?
>>
>>
>>
>>                                                             Thanks,
>>
>>                                                             -- Mike
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> OAuth@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>
>
>