Re: [OAUTH-WG] scp claim in draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-12

The draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange document makes use of scope and at some
point in that work it came to light that, despite the concept of scope
being used lots of places elsewhere, there was no officially registered JWT
claim for scope. As a result, we (the WG) decided to have
draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange define and register a JWT claim for scope.
It's kind of an awkward place for it really but that's how it came to be
there.

When I added it to the draft, I opted for the semi-convention of JWT using
three letter short claim names. And decided to use a JSON array to convey
multiple values rather than space delimiting. It seemed like a good idea at
the time - more consistent with other JWT claim names and cleaner to use
the facilities of JSON rather than a delimited string. That was the
thinking at the time anyway and, as I recall, I asked the WG about doing it
that way at one of the meetings and there was general, if somewhat absent,
nodding in the room.

Looking at this again in the context of the question from Torsten and his
developers, I think using a different name and syntax for the JWT claim vs.
the Introspection response member/parameter/claim is probably a mistake.
While RFC 7662 Introspection response parameters aren't exactly the same as
JWT claims, they are similar in many respects. So giving consistent
treatment across them to something like scope is

Therefore I propose that the JWT claim for representing scope in
draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange be changed to be consistent with the
treatment of scope in RFC 7662 OAuth 2.0 Token Introspection. That
effectively means changing the name from "scp" to "scope" and the value
from a JSON array to a string delimited by spaces.

I realize it's late in the process to make this change but believe doing so
will significantly reduce confusion and issues in the long run.

On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Torsten Lodderstedt <
torsten@lodderstedt.net> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I I’m wondering why draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-12 defines a claim
> „scp“ to carry scope values while RFC 7591 and RFC 7662 use a claim „scope“
> for the same purpose. As far as I understand the text, the intension is to
> represent a list of RFC6749 scopes. Is this correct? What’s the rationale
> behind?
>
> Different claim names for representing scope values confuse people. I
> realized that when one of our developers pointed out that difference
> recently.
>
> best regards,
> Torsten.
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
>

-- 
_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._