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

Filip Skokan <> Wed, 28 August 2019 21:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73AA71200A3 for <>; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 14:23:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hFegjW_E9Alb for <>; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 14:23:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::331]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D8941120059 for <>; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 14:23:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id p23so1339567oto.0 for <>; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 14:23:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Fjm/5bv5z2UQ27WRdQrAENLYuTtey/H0eRSonOACpas=; b=iA2liXCpEPT7AGBbcQr65MSjR55+p1Uca/+KZHKv7tG2+vwte4xJAHFnFOW11w9DTE 2/veLmd70mGU/BYCxbqYiTraremTyY3ggu9ASmWk4CfXswri3qclNMytlRzVtHtimmk4 MFnmv2FpNtzCbwrPIeG0fRpGI5ufjy9KogCjUI6FB6BYZuMHqR9Ih3Y9v46lNNjMkd4N qAAbcAxs5r+5zENBvXs/3+3KNCUL6xyuuKT1amWAobuzoR5Kj2T2U07mzmnrMHNPY/mT ZAva3ERulY9IDzTh+ACM8g9HGCEfHVoHdhe9cVQGOhpHNrfKL5W7Q8fuOlvb0Zq/OBCf 9/GA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Fjm/5bv5z2UQ27WRdQrAENLYuTtey/H0eRSonOACpas=; b=axKESlJj0NP5KNFN1E75lPk6eRChDa8qBaKAB4J4HTufXaA3jdI5XIt/bjiCq+ATAi pFK0O0SqgjACPEMrM2t/vhc1/oyhvBu8stgC10KQ+Jc2CsLyKYNfnouhpld1fKL/alJW McI2hheMJRW6NvP+SKcHfu+vuULTvDcJlGDlhmgKhug4PO0j/qnnuKHYaThum8rVMvQz LNRFUczVUSQf+vOHmvpf1dJAajymZvgIMBSYQvH7UspUq2bP0EG0qMGE8aPmAnkMWP52 Cc/O+EfKL5a4LlfWI5RsICK4IktvP2uz3fcNP5716vfeYSM5MX3EshQ0Df+oX6BTFtZG T0vw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWuAbXRvwglHYpbRsL1lXUM+3rvKJCZg8XIQ55kaffdlZq988KK KXBzY582/UicHkF6foctkiRYa04FlyPmwYAgvw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyWwTwsLgog0ewuPk7+lLiDJyEcKBWek6JvYqSQlD4vQgFW12EppThgw2RZn1TEenWpEfdxWuAsSHJUU5QTC0k=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:1e6e:: with SMTP id m14mr5262383otr.258.1567027405964; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 14:23:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Filip Skokan <>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 23:23:14 +0200
Message-ID: <>
To: Brian Campbell <>
Cc: oauth <>, Nat Sakimura <>, John Bradley <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e2cadc059133ffcd"
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: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 21:23:31 -0000

Well it kind of blows, doesn't it? I wasn't able to find the "why" anywhere
in the mailing list archive around the time this was changed.

My take on satisfying both worlds looks like this

- allow just JAR - no other params when possible.
    (which btw isn't possible to do with request_uri when enforcing client
based uri whitelist and the jwsreq 5.2.2 shows as much)
- enforce the "dupe behaviours" defined in OIDC (if response_type or
client_id is in request object it must either be missing or the same in
regular request).
- allows merging request object and regular parameters with request object
taking precedence since it is a very useful feature when having pre-signed
request object that's not one time use and clients using it wish to vary
state/nonce per-request.

I wish the group reconsidered making this breaking change from OIDC's take
on request objects - allow combination of parameters from the request
object with ones from regular parameters (if not present in request object).

S pozdravem,
*Filip Skokan*

On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 at 23:02, Brian Campbell <>

> Filip, for better or worse, I believe your assessment of the situation is
> correct. I know of one AS that didn't choose which of the two to follow but
> rather implemented a bit of a hybrid where it basically ignores everything
> outside of the request object per JAR but also checks for and enforces the
> presence and value of the few regular parameters (client_id, response_type)
> that OIDC mandates.
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 5:47 AM Filip Skokan <> wrote:
>> Hello everyone,
>> in an earlier thread I've posed the following question that might have
>> gotten missed, this might have consequences for the existing
>> implementations of Request Objects in OIDC implementations - its making
>> pure JAR requests incompatible with OIDC Core implementations.
>> draft 14 of jwsreq (JAR) introduced this language
>> The client MAY send the parameters included in the request object
>>> duplicated in the query parameters as well for the backward
>>> compatibility etc.
>>> *However, the authorization server supporting thisspecification MUST
>>> only use the parameters included in the requestobject. *
>> Server MUST only use the parameters in the Request Object even if the
>>> same parameter is provided in the query parameter.  The Authorization
>> The client MAY send the parameters included in the request object
>>> duplicated in the query parameters as well for the backward
>>> compatibility etc.
>>> *However, the authorization server supporting thisspecification MUST
>>> only use the parameters included in the requestobject. *
>> Nat, John, everyone - *does this mean a JAR compliant AS ignores
>> everything outside of the request object while OIDC Request Object one
>> merges the two with the ones in the request object being used over ones
>> that are sent in clear?* The OIDC language also includes sections which
>> make sure that some required arguments are still passed outside of the
>> request object with the same value to make sure the request is "valid"
>> OAuth 2.0 request (client_id, response_type), something which an example in
>> the JAR spec does not do. Not having this language means that existing
>> authorization request pipelines can't simply be extended with e.g. a
>> middleware, they need to branch their codepaths.
>> Is an AS required to choose which of the two it follows?
>> Thank you for clarifying this in advance. I think if either the behaviour
>> is the same as in OIDC or different this should be called out in the
>> language to avoid confusion, especially since this already exists in OIDC
>> and likely isn't going to be read in isolation, especially because the
>> Request Object is even called out to be already in place in OIDC in the JAR
>> draft.
>> Best,
>> *Filip*
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
> *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and
> privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any
> review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited.
> If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender
> immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from
> your computer. Thank you.*