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

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
>
>