Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT Secured Authorization Request (JAR) vs OIDC request object

Justin Richer <> Fri, 10 January 2020 15:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4474E1200B7 for <>; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 07:01:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.198
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iveN_D4sTHZn for <>; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 07:01:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4678B12009E for <>; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 07:01:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as jricher@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 00AF1BnJ018671 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 10 Jan 2020 10:01:11 -0500
From: Justin Richer <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_AD44431C-6866-4791-9373-8484D6471F01"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 10:01:10 -0500
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Torsten Lodderstedt <>, IETF oauth WG <>
To: John Bradley <>
References: <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT Secured Authorization Request (JAR) vs OIDC request object
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: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 15:01:16 -0000

But merge gives us the ability, which has been stated here before, to have a fixed core set of parameters inside the JAR and a mixed set of variable parameters outside the JAR. 

What if by “merge” we really mean “you can’t repeat things in both places but you can have fields in either”.

— Justin

> On Jan 10, 2020, at 9:49 AM, John Bradley <> wrote:
> I haven't seen any real use of merge.   It happens with Connect as a side effect of OAuths current requirement to have some of the parameters outside the JAR. 
> Nothing stops servers from ignoring parameters outside JAR or acting on query parameters outside the JAR if they are not in the OAuth registry.   A server can merge but that would not be JAR compliant if they care. 
> If the AS returned an error for parameters values that differ between the JAR and the query that is not required but I don't think that is prohibited.  I need to look at that. 
> JAR dosen't say your server can't do something else, but that is not JAR. 
> Clients should be updated to have all the parameters in the JAR.  That should be the case for most of not all clients now.   
> For older servers they need to continue to include the required OAuth parameters outside. 
> Servers need to migrate and eventually move to returning a warning or error when a registry parameter is outside the JAR if JAR is used. 
> Especially if PAR is used (I suspect that will become the prefers pattern) then merging won't really make sense. 
> John B. 
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2020, 6:19 AM Torsten Lodderstedt < <>> wrote:
>> Am 06.01.2020 um 23:50 schrieb John Bradley < <>>:
>> A client could duplicate those outside the request object for some sort of backwards compatability but they will be ignored.
> Is this used for backward compatibility with the OIDC servers?
>> What we have lost is the merge capability.  There are some use cases that could use that to have a presigned object that some paramaters like state are outside.  
> Is this option used in the wild? As far as I understand the main use case is a 3rd party signing the request object that way entitling the client for something. I‘m asking since in my experience any kind of entitlement by a 3rd party is handled behind the scene using registries.
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list