Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-access-token-jwt-08 question

[Vittorio Bertocci <[e-mail]>]

Hi Logan,
Thanks for the note.
The intent would be to present that information in the same way you would when querying a users/<id>, encoded in claims; hence groups would be a list of values representing  what groups the subject belongs to, rather than a list of full group definitions (with all the other members belonging to them, for example) which would go beyond the intended use of the information (supplying authorization information about the subject).
I tried to keep the language high level as I didn’t want to duplicate SCIM guidance, or inadvertently narrow down the options products have to implement this.  If you think this is too vague, we can try to be more specific.

From: OAuth <[e-mail]> on behalf of Logan Widick <[e-mail]>
Date: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 14:21
To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-access-token-jwt-08 question


I took a look at Section 2.2.3.1<http://2.2.3.1>: Claims for Authorization Outside of Delegation Scenarios (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-access-token-jwt-08#section-2.2.3.1) and I do not understand what exactly the formats of the "roles", "groups", and "entitlements" claims will be.

Will the "roles" claim be an array of strings (role names, IDs, or links), an array of the "roles" objects from the SCIM User schema (pages 66-67 of RFC 7643), or something else?

Will the "groups" claim be an array of strings (group names, IDs, or links), an array of the "groups" objects from the SCIM User schema (pages 63-64 of RFC 7643), an array of SCIM Group schema objects (pages 69-70 of RFC 7643), or something else?

Will the "entitlements" claim be an array of strings (entitlement names, IDs, or links), an array of the "entitlements" objects from the SCIM User schema (pages 65-66 of RFC 7643), or something else?

Sincerely,

Logan Widick