Re: [OAUTH-WG] audience (was draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-06)

On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Brian Campbell
<bcampbell@pingidentity.com>wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Hannes Tschofenig
> <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net> wrote:
> > You write:
> >
> > "
> >  3.   The JWT MUST contain an "aud" (audience) claim containing a
> >         value that identifies the authorization server as an intended
> >         audience.  The token endpoint URL of the authorization server
> >         MAY be used as a value for an "aud" element to identify the
> >         authorization server as an intended audience of the JWT.  JWTs
> >         that do not identify the authorization server as an intended
> >         audience MUST be rejected....
> > "
> >
> > If the endpoint URL of the AS is not used then what else? Wouldn't it be
> > useful to say "The token endpoint URL of the authorization server
> >         MUST be used as a value for an "aud" element to identify the
> >         authorization server as an intended audience of the JWT."?
>
> This and the other assertion documents offer the token endpoint URL as
> one way to identify the AS for deployments which lack some other means
> of doing so. However, these assertion profiles are little slices of
> functionality that augment existing deployments of OAuth, often in
> conjunction with other 'federated' technologies for which there will
> be an existing and agreed upon identifier that the issuer is known by.
> This is not just academic - it's how these systems and deployment
> already work. It's inappropriate and unrealistic for this document (or
> the other assertion docs) to preclude common and useful deployment
> practices.
>

Agreed.

>
> > Then, I have a suggestion for re-phrasing this sentence from :
> > "
> >         Audience values SHOULD be compared
> >         using the Simple String Comparison method defined in Section
> >         6.2.1 of RFC 3986 [RFC3986], unless otherwise specified by the
> >         application.
> > "
> > to:
> >
> > "
> > In the absence of an application profile standard specifying
> > otherwise, a compliant JWT Bearer application MUST compare the audience
> > values using the Simple String Comparison method defined in Section
> >         6.2.1 of RFC 3986 [RFC3986].
> > "
>
> I think I'm okay with that re-phrasing. Do others (my co-authors
> especially) agree? Or object?
>

I'm good with it.

-cmort

>
> >
> > The same can actually be applied to the issuer claim as well.
>
> As I said in the previous mail about issuer, I'd like to get rid of
> the comparison text. However, if such text stays, I'll work to make it
> consistent throughout.
>
> > Given that the JWT had been updated to align it with the JOSE work I
> suspect
> > that this document also requires an update.
>
> You may well be correct. But despite following the JOSE and JWT work,
> I'm not sure I know what update(s) would be required. Can you
> elaborate?
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>