Re: [OAUTH-WG] Conflicting definitions in JWT Response for OAuth Token Introspection

Regarding the name of the JSON property in the payload of the introspection
response JWT.

If we choose a more generic name (e.g. "content") than "token_data", the
approach discussed here can be used as a generic way to wrap a JSON
response in JWT. If we are ambitious, we can even add "content_type".

Example 1:
{
  "iss": "...",
  "content_type": "application/json",
  "content": {
    "key0": "value0",
    "key1": "value1"
  }
}

Example 2:
{
  "iss": "...",
  "content_type": "application/x-www-form-urlencoded",
  "content": "key0=value0&key1=value1"
}

Taka

On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 3:28 AM Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net>
wrote:

>
>
> Am 04.03.2020 um 19:18 schrieb Filip Skokan <panva.ip@gmail.com>:
>
> 
> Sorry, i meant - is top level jti required as well?
>
>
> I don’t see any use case for it, but that might be due to lack of
> creativity :-)
>
>
> S pozdravem,
> *Filip Skokan*
>
>
> On Wed, 4 Mar 2020 at 19:15, Filip Skokan <panva.ip@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Torsten, let's make sure we call out the required top level JWT claims -
>> iss, iat, aud, what else? is top level iat required as well?
>>
>> S pozdravem,
>> *Filip Skokan*
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 4 Mar 2020 at 17:19, Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> based on the recent feedback, Vladimir and I propose the following
>>> changes to draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-introspection-response:
>>>
>>> - the token data are encapsulated in a container element “_token_data”
>>> - beyond this, the top-level container only contains meta data pertinent
>>> to the JWT representing the signed (encrypted) introspection response
>>> - we need to add text to the spec to point out that replay detection
>>> must be based on the jti in the “_token_data” container not the top level
>>> claim
>>>
>>> That’s example of how it would look like:
>>>
>>> {
>>>    "iss":"https://as.example-bank.com",
>>>    "aud":"6a256bca-1e0b-4b0c-84fe-c9f78e0cb4a3",
>>>    "iat":1532452100,
>>>    "_token_data":{
>>>       "active":true,
>>>       "iss":"https://as.example-bank.com",
>>>       "aud":"6a256bca-1e0b-4b0c-84fe-c9f78e0cb4a3",
>>>       "jti":"53304e8a-a81e-4bc7-95e3-3b298d283512",
>>>       "iat":1532452084,
>>>       "exp":1532453100,
>>>       "client_id":"3630BF72-E979-477A-A8FF-8A338F07C852",
>>>       "cnf":{
>>>          "x5t#S256":"YzEcNvUV3QXA5Bi9IB66b8psyqZBQgW4500ZGvNRdis"
>>>       },
>>>       "sub":"123456789087632345678"
>>>    }
>>> }
>>>
>>> The response for inactive tokens would look like this:
>>>
>>> {
>>>    "iss":"https://as.example-bank.com",
>>>    "aud":"6a256bca-1e0b-4b0c-84fe-c9f78e0cb4a3",
>>>    "iat":1532452100,
>>>    "_token_data":{
>>>       "active":false
>>>    }
>>> }
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> best regards,
>>> Torsten.
>>>
>>> > On 4. Mar 2020, at 16:37, Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > +1, this encapsulation is much cleaner.
>>> >
>>> >> On Mar 2, 2020, at 2:25 AM, Filip Skokan <panva.ip@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Perhaps we should consider leaving the root level JWT claims as-is
>>> per JWT and push the introspection response unmodified as if it was regular
>>> json response to a JWT claim called "introspection". Since regular
>>> introspection uses the same claim names as JWT this would get around all
>>> the conflicts.
>>> >>
>>> >> Last time i brought it up the authors didn't want to consider it
>>> because of existing implementations.
>>> >>
>>> >> S pozdravem,
>>> >> Filip Skokan
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 at 07:52, Takahiko Kawasaki <taka@authlete.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >> Thank you, Tatsuo Kudo, for showing me that Justin Richer expressed
>>> the same concerns in this mailing list about 6 months ago (on Sep. 4,
>>> 2019). RFC 8707 didn't exist then, though.
>>> >>
>>> >> Re: [OAUTH-WG] Question regarding
>>> draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-introspection-response-05
>>> >>
>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/LmMAxd35gW5Yox0j4MmU2rI_eUA/
>>> >>
>>> >> A JWT puts both (a) information about itself and (b) other data in
>>> its payload part. When the "other data" have the same claim names as are
>>> used to express information about the JWT itself, conflicts happen.
>>> >>
>>> >> Also, it should be noted that Ben pointed out in other thread that
>>> the requirement for "jti" in draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-introspection-response,
>>> which says "jti" is a unique identifier for the access token that MUST be
>>> stable for all introspection calls, contradicts the definition of "jti",
>>> which should be unique for each JWT.
>>> >>
>>> >> Re: [OAUTH-WG] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on
>>> draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-introspection-response-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>>> >>
>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/S4q7cF0TMZMzFO61I5M4QXCUWCM/
>>> >>
>>> >> draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-introspection-response needs to be modified to
>>> solve the conflicts.
>>> >>
>>> >> Taka
>>> >>
>>> >> On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 4:10 PM Takahiko Kawasaki <taka@authlete..com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >> Hello,
>>> >>
>>> >> I'm wondering if the following conflicts in "JWT Response for OAuth
>>> Token Introspection" (draft 8) have already been pointed out.
>>> >>
>>> >> RFC 8707 (Resource Indicators for OAuth 2.0) requires that 'aud' in
>>> an introspection response hold the values of the 'resource' request
>>> parameters, whereas "JWT Response for OAuth Token Introspection" says that
>>> 'aud' MUST identify the resource server receiving the token introspection
>>> response. The definitions conflict.
>>> >>
>>> >> RFC 7662 (OAuth 2.0 Token Introspection) requires that 'iat' in an
>>> introspection response indicate when the access/refresh token was issued,
>>> whereas "JWT Response for OAuth Token Introspection" says that 'iat'
>>> indicates when the introspection response in JWT format was issued. The
>>> definitions conflict.
>>> >>
>>> >> Best Regards,
>>> >> Takahiko Kawasaki
>>> >> Authlete, Inc.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> OAuth mailing list
>>> >> OAuth@ietf.org
>>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> OAuth mailing list
>>> >> OAuth@ietf.org
>>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > OAuth mailing list
>>> > OAuth@ietf.org
>>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>
>>>