JSON Web Token (JWT) Profile for OAuth 2.0 Access Tokens
draft-ietf-oauth-access-token-jwt-07
OAuth Working Group V. Bertocci
Internet-Draft Auth0
Intended status: Standards Track April 27, 2020
Expires: October 29, 2020
JSON Web Token (JWT) Profile for OAuth 2.0 Access Tokens
draft-ietf-oauth-access-token-jwt-07
Abstract
This specification defines a profile for issuing OAuth 2.0 access
tokens in JSON web token (JWT) format. Authorization servers and
resource servers from different vendors can leverage this profile to
issue and consume access tokens in interoperable manner.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 29, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Bertocci Expires October 29, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft OAuth Access Token JWT Profile April 2020
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Notation and Conventions . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. JWT Access Token Header and Data Structure . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Data Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2.1. Authentication Information Claims . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.2. Identity Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.3. Authorization Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.3.1. Claims for Authorization Outside of Delegation
Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Requesting a JWT Access Token . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Validating JWT Access Tokens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.1. Media Type Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.1.1. Registry Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.2. Claims Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.2.1. Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix B. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1. Introduction
The original OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework [RFC6749]
specification does not mandate any specific format for access tokens.
While that remains perfectly appropriate for many important
scenarios, in-market use has shown that many commercial OAuth 2.0
implementations elected to issue access tokens using a format that
can be parsed and validated by resource servers directly, without
further authorization server involvement. The approach is
particularly common in topologies where the authorization server and
resource server are not co-located, are not run by the same entity,
or are otherwise separated by some boundary. At the time of writing,
many commercial implementations leverage the JSON Web Tokens (JWT)
[RFC7519] format.
Many vendor specific JWT access tokens share the same functional
layout, using JWT claims to convey the information needed to support
Show full document text