Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT - scope claim missing

[Phil Hunt <[e-mail]>]

Are you saying jwt is not an access token type?

Phil

Sent from my phone.

On 2013-02-28, at 8:58, John Bradley <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Yes, defining scope in JWT is the wrong place.   JWT needs to stick to the security claims needed to process JWT.
> 
> I also don't know how far you get requiring a specific authorization format for JWT, some AS will wan to use a opaque reference, some might want to use a user claim or role claim, others may use scopes,  combining scopes and claims is also possible.
> 
> Right now it is up to a AS RS pair to agree on how to communicate authorization.   I don't want MAC to be more restrictive than bearer when it comes to authorization between AS and RS.
> 
> Hannes wanted to know why JWT didn't define scope.  The simple answer is that it is out of scope for JWT itself.   It might be defined in a OAuth access token profile for JWT but it should not be specific to MAC.
> 
> John B.
> On 2013-02-28, at 8:44 AM, Brian Campbell <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> I think John's point was more that scope is something rather specific to an OAuth access token and, while JWT is can be used to represent an access token, it's not the only application of JWT. The 'standard' claims in JWT are those that are believed (right or wrong) to be widely applicable across different applications of JWT. One could argue about it but scope is probably not one of those.
>> 
>> It would probably make sense to try and build a profile of JWT specifically for OAuth access tokens (though I suspect there are some turtles and dragons in there), which might be the appropriate place to define/register a scope claim.
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Phil Hunt <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> Are you advocating TWO systems? That seems like a bad choice.
>>> 
>>> I would rather fix scope than go to a two system approach.
>>> 
>>> Phil
>>> 
>>> Sent from my phone.
>>> 
>>> On 2013-02-28, at 8:17, John Bradley <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> > While scope is one method that a AS could communicate authorization to a RS, it is not the only or perhaps even the most likely one.
>>> > Using scope requires a relatively tight binding between the RS and AS,  UMA uses a different mechanism that describes finer grained operations.
>>> > The AS may include roles, user, or other more abstract claims that the the client may (god help them) pass on to EXCML for processing.
>>> >
>>> > While having a scopes claim is possible, like any other claim it is not part of the JWT core security processing claims, and needs to be defined by extension.
>>> >
>>> > John B.
>>> > On 2013-02-28, at 2:29 AM, Hannes Tschofenig <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Hi Mike,
>>> >>
>>> >> when I worked on the MAC specification I noticed that the JWT does not have a claim for the scope. I believe that this would be needed to allow the resource server to verify whether the scope the authorization server authorized is indeed what the client is asking for.
>>> >>
>>> >> Ciao
>>> >> Hannes
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> OAuth mailing list
>>> >> [e-mail]
>>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > OAuth mailing list
>>> > [e-mail]
>>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OAuth mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>