Re: [OAUTH-WG] JSON Web Token (JWT) Profile

John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> Tue, 11 March 2014 15:25 UTC

Return-Path: <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.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 D14EE1A03F7 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 08:25:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 HlB_8OXD-D2I for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 08:25:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yh0-f45.google.com (mail-yh0-f45.google.com [209.85.213.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F9051A074E for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 08:25:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yh0-f45.google.com with SMTP id a41so569410yho.4 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 08:25:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=JBn5osmi8bFVmBtYW5d4fttL6n7utwuJDY6YXS3ypw0=; b=gINuXg55UtfoEmzdFrXbBdyzDB4OqxXvj0hUsTTL8+WZc7lHUygqFs0EMRu0NbLo2V oKdORXz7a39weV5+vG3Ny0+ZQWEz32em3Ip7k2NlNbqH/MuJnPgCJxd+ZNxRtwvfcAEo 36CjypyJ7WDxLC6K2A1NQUQZ8BqeueclKkMGe3ppeeSZ6KVp1P5hyWReH+7gq3MVXGeV Xi2PuKqzpv61D15ElSpm3otu9jJ4cT5DICBegNj3MKZaMbp2PE5XIyMfvMlpNE6qsXRi Gvkk/fYPA/Hwo5Va5upjwRCP6InE8g+MV5ELtbXEf02T5a9/+S10w/Hpleme56TlbHWq KbRA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn6LOZHfecYlYaF5MROsb8jNn4HyOejwg+5VwazN4DMPIZe7RepTqJVf0vlkRv+NFCC8Kpx
X-Received: by 10.236.93.208 with SMTP id l56mr3310052yhf.112.1394551511662; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 08:25:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.200] ([201.188.147.185]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id 23sm66205128yhj.5.2014.03.11.08.25.09 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 11 Mar 2014 08:25:10 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8216894A-310A-453C-B8FB-4844F298B38C"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
In-Reply-To: <531F2632.2090204@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 12:25:05 -0300
Message-Id: <DF99C8A6-DD40-40DE-8F01-399C4CB6FFDC@ve7jtb.com>
References: <3A1BC33F-1AE2-492F-BCE9-CCB9CF4C3C83@adobe.com> <531F1F72.8010805@gmx.net> <5275E1B4-64DD-48FF-A1A9-959C75EA5DE2@adobe.com> <531F234E.90609@gmx.net> <E8EF9394-73F1-413F-A064-C8543C52EAFD@adobe.com> <531F2632.2090204@gmx.net>
To: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/cKzKWylHmyzAhLwCZPE9Zm8USCk
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] JSON Web Token (JWT) Profile
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: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 15:25:26 -0000

The missing scheme especially on JWT issued by google is something I understand they are working on but need to be careful about breaking existing code, so will possibly need new endpoints that are spec compliant. 

While in this google case the subject and the issuer happen to be the same they may well not be even in the self signed case.   In WG discussions being consistent in providing the subject was considered to be better for interoperability than optimizing for the case where sub or issuer could be dropped.  

John B.

On Mar 11, 2014, at 12:05 PM, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net> wrote:

> Maintaining both information in the JWT is IMHO valuable since it gives
> you some information about the security properties. Needless to say that
> there is a substantial difference between a self-created JWT and a JWT
> from a third party the relying party has some confidence in.
> 
> Why Google has an old implementation and whether they are planning to
> update their code remains to be seen.
> 
> More importantly, however, is why you argue that the subject claim has
> to be optional.
> 
> Ciao
> Hannes
> 
> Ps: I also noticed in the examples that all URIs have their URI scheme
> missing. While that might be OK I am not entirely sure...
> 
> On 03/11/2014 04:08 PM, Antonio Sanso wrote:
>> 
>> On Mar 11, 2014, at 3:53 PM, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> Thanks for clarifying.
>>> 
>>> I took a quick look at the Google API and it seems that in their use
>>> case the client creates the JWT and consequently the subject and the
>>> issue would actually be the same. I suspect that this is the reason why
>>> they omitted the subject.
>> 
>> agreed that is why in my mail I said the subject might overlap with the issuer.
>> The subject in the google case is still called with its obsolete name (prn) and it is actually listed as ‘additional claims’ hence not mandatory.
>> 
>> regards
>> 
>> antonio
>> 
>>> 
>>> Could you explain why you would like to omit the subject claim in the JWT?
>>> 
>>> Ciao
>>> Hannes
>>> 
>>> PS: Your feedback on the  draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-07 spec is timely
>>> since we are about to finish all three assertion specs.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 03/11/2014 03:56 PM, Antonio Sanso wrote:
>>>> hi Hannes,
>>>> 
>>>> I am aware of the 2 documents,
>>>> 
>>>> I might be wrong but http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-07 is also about Authorization Grant Processing (this is the part I do use in my implementation ) and not only Client Authentication Processing.
>>>> 
>>>> Just my 0.02 $ but this seems to be a place where different implementer have the same issue :)
>>>> 
>>>> regards
>>>> 
>>>> antonio
>>>> 
>>>> On Mar 11, 2014, at 3:36 PM, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Manfred, Hi Antonio,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Note that there are two documents that talk about the JWT and you guys
>>>>> might be looking at the wrong document.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The main JWT document (see
>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token-18) defines
>>>>> the subject claim as optional (see Section 4.1.2).
>>>>> 
>>>>> The JWT bearer assertion document (see
>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-07) does indeed
>>>>> define it as mandatory but that's intentional since the purpose of the
>>>>> spec is to authenticate the client (or the resource owner for an
>>>>> authorization grant).
>>>>> 
>>>>> The assertion documents are used for interworking with "legacy" identity
>>>>> infrastructure (such as SAML federations).
>>>>> 
>>>>> So, are you sure you are indeed looking at the right document?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ciao
>>>>> Hannes
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 03/11/2014 03:13 PM, Antonio Sanso wrote:
>>>>>> hi *,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> JSON Web Token (JWT) Profile section 3 [0] explicitely says 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The JWT MUST contain a "sub" (subject) claim 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Now IMHO there are cases where having the sub is either not needed or
>>>>>> redundant (since it might overlap with the issuer).\
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> As far as I can see “even Google” currently violates this spec [1] ( I
>>>>>> know that this doesn’t matter, just wanted to bring a real use case
>>>>>> scenario).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> WDYT might the “sub” be optional in some situation?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> regards
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> antonio 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> [0] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-07#section-3
>>>>>> [1] https://developers.google.com/accounts/docs/OAuth2ServiceAccount
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> OAuth mailing list
>>>>>> OAuth@ietf.org
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth