Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer != access tokens (was Re: draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer Shepherd Write-up)

Bill Burke <bburke@redhat.com> Fri, 25 April 2014 21:04 UTC

Return-Path: <bburke@redhat.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 E3EA31A06A5 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 14:04:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.174
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.174 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, 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 z7IDjgjSOWkN for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 14:04:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA24E1A03D9 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 14:04:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s3PL4fB1004976 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 25 Apr 2014 17:04:41 -0400
Received: from [10.10.50.202] (vpn-50-202.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.50.202]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s3PL4eE1019782; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 17:04:41 -0400
Message-ID: <535ACDEB.3090906@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 17:04:43 -0400
From: Bill Burke <bburke@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
References: <CA+k3eCTeBZNh8-dhtkjbCJdJ6PfciZQNQOznJj+jdik6Z6Detw@mail.gmail.com> <535ABCBF.3090308@redhat.com> <CA+k3eCTzXS=aP8BQz2KL=0xht9wwtUEVwjgoYRjfmpy-n4HVuA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+k3eCTzXS=aP8BQz2KL=0xht9wwtUEVwjgoYRjfmpy-n4HVuA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.23
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/aRMNnnf8Mm-GGIiAgwO6ruYZh9s
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 21:04:52 -0000

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