Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-08 & subject issue

[Brian Campbell <[e-mail]>]

There is some discussion of that case in the assertion framework document
at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-assertions-15#section-6.3.1

Do you feel that more is needed? If so, can you propose some text?


On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 1:09 AM, Hannes Tschofenig <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Brian,
>
> I read through the thread and the Google case is a bit different since
> they are using the client authentication part of the JWT bearer spec.
> There I don't see the privacy concerns either.
>
> I am, however, focused on the authorization grant where the subject is
> in most cases the resource owner.
>
> It is possible to put garbage into the subject element when privacy
> protection is needed for the resource owner case but that would need to
> be described in the document; currently it is not there.
>
> Ciao
> Hannes
>
>
> On 04/24/2014 12:37 AM, Brian Campbell wrote:
> > That thread that Antonio started which you reference went on for some
> > time
> > (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/threads.html#12520)
> > and seems to have reached consensus that the spec didn't need normative
> > change and that such privacy cases or other cases which didn't
> > explicitly need a subject identifier would be more appropriately dealt
> > with in application logic:
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg12538.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 2:39 AM, Hannes Tschofenig
> > <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >
> >     Hi all,
> >
> >     in preparing the shepherd write-up for
> draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-08 I
> >     had to review our recent email conversations and the issue raised by
> >     Antonio in
> >     http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg12520.htmlbelong
> >     to it.
> >
> >     The issue was that Section 3 of draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-08 says:
> >     "
> >        2.   The JWT MUST contain a "sub" (subject) claim identifying the
> >             principal that is the subject of the JWT.  Two cases need to
> be
> >             differentiated:
> >
> >             A.  For the authorization grant, the subject SHOULD identify
> an
> >                 authorized accessor for whom the access token is being
> >                 requested (typically the resource owner, or an authorized
> >                 delegate).
> >
> >             B.  For client authentication, the subject MUST be the
> >                 "client_id" of the OAuth client.
> >     "
> >
> >     Antonio pointed to the current Google API to illustrate that the
> subject
> >     is not always needed. Here is the Google API documentation:
> >     https://developers.google.com/accounts/docs/OAuth2ServiceAccount
> >
> >     The Google API used the client authentication part (rather than the
> >     authorization grant), in my understanding.
> >
> >     I still believe that the subject field has to be included for client
> >     authentication but I am not so sure anymore about the authorization
> >     grant since I could very well imagine cases where the subject is not
> >     needed for authorization decisions but also for privacy reasons.
> >
> >     I would therefore suggest to change the text as follows:
> >
> >     "
> >        2.   The JWT contains a "sub" (subject) claim identifying the
> >             principal that is the subject of the JWT.  Two cases need to
> be
> >             differentiated:
> >
> >             A.  For the authorization grant, the subject claim MAY
> >                 be included. If it is included it MUST identify the
> >                 authorized accessor for whom the access token is being
> >                 requested (typically the resource owner, or an authorized
> >                 delegate). Reasons for not including the subject claim
> >                 in the JWT are identity hiding (i.e., privacy protection
> >                 of the identifier of the subject) and cases where
> >                 the identifier of the subject is irrelevant for making
> >                 an authorization decision by the resource server.
> >
> >             B.  For client authentication, the subject MUST be the
> >                 included in the JWT and the value MUST be populated
> >                 with the "client_id" of the OAuth client.
> >     "
> >
> >     What do you guys think?
> >
> >     Ciao
> >     Hannes
> >
> >
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     OAuth mailing list
> >     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> >
> >
>
>