JSON Web Token (JWT) Profile for OAuth 2.0 Access Tokens
draft-ietf-oauth-access-token-jwt-00
OAuth Working Group V. Bertocci
Internet-Draft Auth0
Intended status: Standards Track April 22, 2019
Expires: October 24, 2019
JSON Web Token (JWT) Profile for OAuth 2.0 Access Tokens
draft-ietf-oauth-access-token-jwt-00
Abstract
This specification defines a profile for issuing OAuth2 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 24, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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 24, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft OAuth Access Token JWT Profile April 2019
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 . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Data Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2.1. Identity Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.2. Authorization Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.2.1. Claims for Authorization Outside of Delegation
Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Requesting a JWT Access Token . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Validating JWT Access Tokens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix B. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
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 scenario,
in-market use has shown that many commercial OAuth2 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 ran by the same entity, or are otherwise
separated by some boundary. All of the known commercial
implementations known at this time leverage the JSON Web Tokens(JWT)
[RFC7519] format.
Most vendor specific JWT access tokens share the same functional
layout, including information in forms of claims meant to support the
same scenarios: token validation, transporting authorization
information in forms of scopes and entitlements, carrying identity
information about the subject, and so on. The differences are mostly
confined to the claim names and syntax used to represent the same
entities, suggesting that interoperability could be easily achieved
Show full document text