JWT Response for OAuth Token Introspection
draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-introspection-response-12
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (oauth WG) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Torsten Lodderstedt , Vladimir Dzhuvinov | |||
| Last updated | 2021-09-08 (latest revision 2021-09-04) | |||
| Replaces | draft-lodderstedt-oauth-jwt-introspection-response | |||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | |||
| Intended RFC status | Proposed Standard | |||
| Formats | plain text html xml pdf htmlized bibtex | |||
| Reviews | ||||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | ||
| Document shepherd | Rifaat Shekh-Yusef | |||
| Shepherd write-up | Show (last changed 2020-07-05) | |||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC Ed Queue | ||
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
|||
| Consensus Boilerplate | Yes | |||
| Telechat date | ||||
| Responsible AD | Roman Danyliw | |||
| Send notices to | Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <rifaat.s.ietf@gmail.com> | |||
| IANA | IANA review state | Version Changed - Review Needed | ||
| IANA action state | RFC-Ed-Ack | |||
| IANA expert review state | Expert Reviews OK | |||
| RFC Editor | RFC Editor state | MISSREF | ||
| Details | ||||
Open Authentication Protocol T. Lodderstedt, Ed.
Internet-Draft yes.com AG
Intended status: Standards Track V. Dzhuvinov
Expires: 8 March 2022 Connect2id Ltd.
4 September 2021
JWT Response for OAuth Token Introspection
draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-introspection-response-12
Abstract
This specification proposes an additional JSON Web Token (JWT)
secured response for OAuth 2.0 Token Introspection.
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 8 March 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 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.
Lodderstedt & Dzhuvinov Expires 8 March 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft JWT Response September 2021
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requirements Notation and Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Resource Server Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Requesting a JWT Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. JWT Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Client Metadata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Authorization Server Metadata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.1. Cross-JWT Confusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.2. Token Data Leakage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11.1. OAuth Dynamic Client Registration Metadata
Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11.1.1. Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11.2. OAuth Authorization Server Metadata Registration . . . . 11
11.2.1. Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11.3. Media Type Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11.3.1. Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11.4. JWT Claim Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
11.4.1. Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix A. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Introduction
OAuth 2.0 Token Introspection [RFC7662] specifies a method for a
protected resource to query an OAuth 2.0 authorization server to
determine the state of an access token and obtain data associated
with the access token. This enables deployments to implement opaque
access tokens in an interoperable way.
The introspection response, as specified in OAuth 2.0 Token
Introspection [RFC7662], is a plain JSON object. However, there are
use cases where the resource server requires stronger assurance that
the authorization server issued the token introspection response for
an access token, including cases where the authorization server
assumes liability for the content of the token introspection
response. An example is a resource server using verified person data
to create certificates, which in turn are used to create qualified
electronic signatures.
Lodderstedt & Dzhuvinov Expires 8 March 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft JWT Response September 2021
In such use cases it may be useful or even required to return a
signed JWT [RFC7519] as the introspection response. This
specification extends the token introspection endpoint with the
capability to return responses as JWTs.
2. Requirements Notation and Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. Resource Server Management
The authorization server (AS) and the resource server (RS) maintain a
strong two-way trust relationship. The resource server relies on the
authorization server to obtain authorization, user and other data as
input to its access control decisions and service delivery. The
authorization server relies on the resource server to handle the
provided data appropriately.
In the context of this specification, the token introspection
endpoint is used to convey such security data and potentially also
privacy sensitive data related to an access token.
In order to process the introspection requests in a secure and
privacy-preserving manner, the authorization server MUST be able to
identify, authenticate and authorize resource servers.
The authorization server MAY additionally encrypt the token
introspection response JWTs. If encryption is used the authorization
server is provisioned with encryption keys and algorithms for the RS.
The authorization server MUST be able to determine whether an RS is
the audience for a particular access token and what data it is
entitled to receive, otherwise the RS is not authorized to obtain
data for the access token. The AS has the discretion how to fulfil
this requirement. The AS could, for example, maintain a mapping
between scope values and resource servers.
The requirements given above imply that the authorization server
maintains credentials and other configuration data for each RS.
One way is by utilizing dynamic client registration [RFC7591] and
treating every RS as an OAuth client. In this case, the
authorization server is assumed to at least maintain a "client_id"
and a "token_endpoint_auth_method" with complementary authentication
Lodderstedt & Dzhuvinov Expires 8 March 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft JWT Response September 2021
method metadata, such as "jwks" or "client_secret". In cases where
the AS needs to acquire consent to transmit data to a RS, the
following client metadata fields are recommended: "client_name",
"client_uri", "contacts", "tos_uri", "policy_uri".
The AS MUST restrict the use of client credentials by a RS to the
calls it requires, e.g. the AS MAY restrict such a client to call the
token introspection endpoint only. How the AS implements this
restriction is beyond the scope of this specification.
This specification further introduces client metadata to manage the
configuration options required to sign and encrypt token
introspection response JWTs.
4. Requesting a JWT Response
A resource server requests a JWT introspection response by sending an
introspection request with an "Accept" HTTP header field set to
"application/token-introspection+jwt".
The AS MUST authenticate the caller at the token introspection
endpoint. Authentication can utilize client authentication methods
or a separate access token issued to the resource server and
identifying it as subject.
The following is a non-normative example request, with the resource
server authenticating with a private key JWT:
POST /introspect HTTP/1.1
Host: as.example.com
Accept: application/token-introspection+jwt
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
token=2YotnFZFEjr1zCsicMWpAA&
client_assertion_type=
urn%3Aietf%3Aparams%3Aoauth%3Aclient-assertion-type%3Ajwt-bearer&
client_assertion=PHNhbWxwOl[...omitted for brevity...]ZT
5. JWT Response
The introspection endpoint responds with a JWT, setting the "Content-
Type" HTTP header field to "application/token-introspection+jwt" and
the JWT "typ" ("type") header parameter to "token-introspection+jwt".
The JWT MUST include the following top-level claims:
iss MUST be set to the issuer URL of the authorization server.
Lodderstedt & Dzhuvinov Expires 8 March 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft JWT Response September 2021
aud MUST identify the resource server receiving the token
introspection response.
iat MUST be set to the time when the introspection response was
created by the authorization server.
token_introspection A JSON object containing the members of the
token introspection response as specified in [RFC7662],
section 2.2. The separation of the introspection response
members into a dedicated containing JWT claim is intended to
prevent conflict and confusion with top-level JWT claims that
may bear the same name.
If the access token is invalid, expired, revoked, or not
intended for the calling resource server (audience), the
authorization server MUST set the value of the "active"
member in the "token_introspection" claim to "false" and MUST
NOT include other members. Otherwise, the "active" member is
set to "true".
The AS SHOULD narrow down the "scope" value to the scopes
relevant to the particular RS.
As specified in section 2.2 of [RFC7662], implementations MAY
extend the token introspection response with service-specific
claims. In the context of this specification, such claims
will be added as top-level members of the
"token_introspection" claim.
Token introspection response parameter names intended to be
used across domains MUST be registered in the OAuth Token
Introspection Response registry
[IANA.OAuth.Token.Introspection] defined by [RFC7662].
When the AS acts as a provider of resource owner identity
claims to the RS, the AS determines based on its RS-specific
policy what identity claims to return in the token
introspection response. The AS MUST ensure the release of
any privacy-sensitive data is legally based (see Section 9).
Further content of the introspection response is determined
by the RS-specific policy at the AS.
The JWT MAY include other claims, including those from the "JSON Web
Token Claims" registry established by [RFC7519]. The JWT SHOULD NOT
include the "sub" and "exp" claims, as an additional prevention
against misuse of the JWT as an access token (see Section 8.1).
Lodderstedt & Dzhuvinov Expires 8 March 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft JWT Response September 2021
Note: Although the JWT format is widely used as an access token
format, the JWT returned in the introspection response is not an
alternative representation of the introspected access token and is
not intended to be used as an access token.
This specification registers the "application/token-
introspection+jwt" media type, which is used as value of the "typ"
("type") header parameter of the JWT to indicate that the payload is
a token introspection response.
The JWT is cryptographically secured as specified in [RFC7519].
Depending on the specific resource server policy the JWT is either
signed, or signed and encrypted. If the JWT is signed and encrypted
it MUST be a Nested JWT, as defined in JWT [RFC7519].
Note: An AS compliant with this specification MUST refuse to serve
introspection requests that don't authenticate the caller, and return
an HTTP status code 400. This is done to ensure token data is
released to legitimate recipients only and prevent downgrading to
[RFC7662] behavior (see Section 8.2).
The following is a non-normative example response (with line breaks
for display purposes only):
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/token-introspection+jwt
eyJraWQiOiJ3RzZEIiwidHlwIjoidG9rZW4taW50cm9zcGVjdGlvbitqd3QiLCJhbGc
iOiJSUzI1NiJ9.eyJpc3MiOiJodHRwczovL2FzLmV4YW1wbGUuY29tLyIsImF1ZCI6I
mh0dHBzOi8vcnMuZXhhbXBsZS5jb20vcmVzb3VyY2UiLCJpYXQiOjE1MTQ3OTc4OTIs
InRva2VuX2ludHJvc3BlY3Rpb24iOnsiYWN0aXZlIjp0cnVlLCJpc3MiOiJodHRwczo
vL2FzLmV4YW1wbGUuY29tLyIsImF1ZCI6Imh0dHBzOi8vcnMuZXhhbXBsZS5jb20vcm
Vzb3VyY2UiLCJpYXQiOjE1MTQ3OTc4MjIsImV4cCI6MTUxNDc5Nzk0MiwiY2xpZW50X
2lkIjoicGFpQjJnb28wYSIsInNjb3BlIjoicmVhZCB3cml0ZSBkb2xwaGluIiwic3Vi
IjoiWjVPM3VwUEM4OFFyQWp4MDBkaXMiLCJiaXJ0aGRhdGUiOiIxOTgyLTAyLTAxIiw
iZ2l2ZW5fbmFtZSI6IkpvaG4iLCJmYW1pbHlfbmFtZSI6IkRvZSIsImp0aSI6InQxRm
9DQ2FaZDRYdjRPUkpVV1ZVZVRaZnNLaFczMENRQ3JXRERqd1h5NncifX0.przJMU5Gh
mNzvwtt1Sr-xa9xTkpiAg5IshbQsRiRVP_7eGR1GHYrNwQh84kxOkHCyje2g5WSRcYo
sGEVIiC-eoPJJ-qBwqwSlgx9JEeCDw2W5DjrblOI_N0Jvsq_dUeOyoWVMqlOydOBhKN
Y0smBrI4NZvEExucOm9WUJXMuJtvq1gBes-0go5j4TEv9sOP9uu81gqWTr_LOo6pgT0
tFFyZfWC4kbXPXiQ2YT6mxCiQRRNM-l9cBdF6Jx6IOrsfFhBuYdYQ_mlL19HgDDOFal
eyqmru6lKlASOsaE8dmLSeKcX91FbG79FKN8un24iwIDCbKT9xlUFl54xWVShNDFA
The example response JWT header contains the following JSON document:
Lodderstedt & Dzhuvinov Expires 8 March 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft JWT Response September 2021
{
"typ": "token-introspection+jwt",
"alg": "RS256",
"kid": "wG6D"
}
The example response JWT payload contains the following JSON
document:
{
"iss":"https://as.example.com/",
"aud":"https://rs.example.com/resource",
"iat":1514797892,
"token_introspection":
{
"active":true,
"iss":"https://as.example.com/",
"aud":"https://rs.example.com/resource",
"iat":1514797822,
"exp":1514797942,
"client_id":"paiB2goo0a",
"scope":"read write dolphin",
"sub":"Z5O3upPC88QrAjx00dis",
"birthdate":"1982-02-01",
"given_name":"John",
"family_name":"Doe",
"jti":"t1FoCCaZd4Xv4ORJUWVUeTZfsKhW30CQCrWDDjwXy6w"
}
}
6. Client Metadata
The authorization server determines the algorithm to secure the JWT
for a particular introspection response. This decision can be based
on registered metadata parameters for the resource server, supplied
via dynamic client registration [RFC7591] with the resource server
acting as a client, as specified below.
The parameter names follow the pattern established by OpenID Connect
Dynamic Client Registration [OpenID.Registration] for configuring
signing and encryption algorithms for JWT responses at the UserInfo
endpoint.
The following client metadata parameters are introduced by this
specification:
introspection_signed_response_alg OPTIONAL. JWS [RFC7515] algorithm
Lodderstedt & Dzhuvinov Expires 8 March 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft JWT Response September 2021
("alg" value) as defined in JWA [RFC7518] for signing
introspection responses. If this is specified, the response
will be signed using JWS and the configured algorithm. The
default, if omitted, is "RS256".
introspection_encrypted_response_alg OPTIONAL. JWE [RFC7516]
algorithm ("alg" value) as defined in JWA [RFC7518] for
content key encryption. If this is specified, the response
will be encrypted using JWE and the configured content
encryption algorithm
("introspection_encrypted_response_enc"). The default, if
omitted, is that no encryption is performed. If both signing
and encryption are requested, the response will be signed
then encrypted, with the result being a Nested JWT, as
defined in JWT [RFC7519].
introspection_encrypted_response_enc OPTIONAL. JWE [RFC7516]
algorithm ("enc" value) as defined in JWA [RFC7518] for
content encryption of introspection responses. The default,
if omitted, is "A128CBC-HS256". Note: This parameter MUST
NOT be specified without setting
"introspection_encrypted_response_alg".
Resource servers may register their public encryption keys using the
"jwks_uri" or "jwks" metadata parameters.
7. Authorization Server Metadata
Authorization servers SHOULD publish the supported algorithms for
signing and encrypting the JWT of an introspection response by
utilizing OAuth 2.0 Authorization Server Metadata [RFC8414]
parameters. Resource servers use this data to parametrize their
client registration requests.
The following parameters are introduced by this specification:
introspection_signing_alg_values_supported OPTIONAL. JSON array
containing a list of the JWS [RFC7515] signing algorithms
("alg" values) as defined in JWA [RFC7518] supported by the
introspection endpoint to sign the response.
introspection_encryption_alg_values_supported OPTIONAL. JSON array
containing a list of the JWE [RFC7516] encryption algorithms
("alg" values) as defined in JWA [RFC7518] supported by the
introspection endpoint to encrypt the content encryption key
for introspection responses (content key encryption).
introspection_encryption_enc_values_supported OPTIONAL. JSON array
Lodderstedt & Dzhuvinov Expires 8 March 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft JWT Response September 2021
containing a list of the JWE [RFC7516] encryption algorithms
("enc" values) as defined in JWA [RFC7518] supported by the
introspection endpoint to encrypt the response (content
encryption).
8. Security Considerations
8.1. Cross-JWT Confusion
The "iss" and potentially the "aud" claim of a token introspection
JWT can resemble those of a JWT-encoded access token. An attacker
could try to exploit this and pass a JWT token introspection response
as an access token to the resource server. The "typ" ("type") JWT
header "token-introspection+jwt" and the encapsulation of the token
introspection members such as "sub" and "scope" in the
"token_introspection" claim is intended to prevent such substitution
attacks. Resource servers MUST therefore check the "typ" JWT header
value of received JWT-encoded access tokens and ensure all minimally
required claims for a valid access token are present.
Resource servers MUST additionally apply the countermeasures against
replay as described in [I-D.ietf-oauth-security-topics], section 3.2.
JWT Confusion and other attacks involving JWTs are discussed in
[I-D.ietf-oauth-jwt-bcp].
8.2. Token Data Leakage
The authorization server MUST use Transport Layer Security (TLS) 1.2
(or higher) per BCP 195 [RFC7525] in order to prevent token data
leakage.
Section 2.1 of [RFC7662] permits requests to the introspection
endpoint to be authorized with an access token which doesn't identify
the caller. To prevent introspection of tokens by parties that are
not the intended consumer the authorization server MUST require all
requests to the token introspection endpoint to be authenticated.
9. Privacy Considerations
The token introspection response can be used to transfer personal
identifiable information (PII) from the AS to the RS. The AS MUST
conform to legal and jurisdictional constraints for the data transfer
before any data is released to a particular RS. The details and
determining of these constraints varies by jurisdiction and is
outside the scope of this document.
Lodderstedt & Dzhuvinov Expires 8 March 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft JWT Response September 2021
A commonly found way to establish the legal basis for releasing PII
is by explicit user consent gathered from the resource owner by the
AS during the authorization flow.
It is also possible that the legal basis is established out of band,
for example in an explicit contract or by the client gathering the
resource owner's consent.
If the AS and the RS belong to the same legal entity (1st party
scenario), there is potentially no need for an explicit user consent
but the terms of service and policy of the respective service
provider MUST be enforced at all times.
In any case, the AS MUST ensure that the scope of the legal basis is
enforced throughout the whole process. The AS MUST retain the scope
of the legal basis with the access token, e.g. in the scope value, it
MUST authenticate the RS, and the AS MUST determine the data a
resource server is allowed to receive based on the resource server's
identity and suitable token data, e.g. the scope value.
Implementers should be aware that a token introspection request lets
the AS know when the client (and potentially the user) is accessing
the RS, which is also an indication of when the user is using the
client. If this implication is not acceptable, implementers MUST use
other means to relay access token data, for example by directly
transferring the data needed by the RS within the access token.
10. Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Petteri Stenius, Neil Madden, Filip Skokan,
Tony Nadalin, Remco Schaar, Justin Richer, Takahiko Kawasaki,
Benjamin Kaduk, Robert Wilton and Roman Danyliw for their valuable
feedback.
11. IANA Considerations
11.1. OAuth Dynamic Client Registration Metadata Registration
This specification requests registration of the following client
metadata definitions in the IANA "OAuth Dynamic Client Registration
Metadata" registry [IANA.OAuth.Parameters] established by [RFC7591]:
11.1.1. Registry Contents
* Client Metadata Name: "introspection_signed_response_alg"
* Client Metadata Description: String value indicating the client's
desired introspection response signing algorithm.
Lodderstedt & Dzhuvinov Expires 8 March 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft JWT Response September 2021
* Change Controller: IESG
* Specification Document(s): Section 6 of [[ this specification ]]
* Client Metadata Name: "introspection_encrypted_response_alg"
* Client Metadata Description: String value specifying the desired
introspection response content key encryption algorithm (alg
value).
* Change Controller: IESG
* Specification Document(s): Section 6 of [[ this specification ]]
* Client Metadata Name: "introspection_encrypted_response_enc"
* Client Metadata Description: String value specifying the desired
introspection response content encryption algorithm (enc value).
* Change Controller: IESG
* Specification Document(s): Section 6 of [[ this specification ]]
11.2. OAuth Authorization Server Metadata Registration
This specification requests registration of the following values in
the IANA "OAuth Authorization Server Metadata" registry
[IANA.OAuth.Parameters] established by [RFC8414].
11.2.1. Registry Contents
* Metadata Name: "introspection_signing_alg_values_supported"
* Metadata Description: JSON array containing a list of algorithms
supported by the authorization server for introspection response
signing.
* Change Controller: IESG
* Specification Document(s): Section 7 of [[ this specification ]]
* Metadata Name: "introspection_encryption_alg_values_supported"
* Metadata Description: JSON array containing a list of algorithms
supported by the authorization server for introspection response
content key encryption (alg value).
* Change Controller: IESG
Lodderstedt & Dzhuvinov Expires 8 March 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft JWT Response September 2021
* Specification Document(s): Section 7 of [[ this specification ]]
* Metadata Name: "introspection_encryption_enc_values_supported"
* Metadata Description: JSON array containing a list of algorithms
supported by the authorization server for introspection response
content encryption (enc value).
* Change Controller: IESG
* Specification Document(s): Section 7 of [[ this specification ]]
11.3. Media Type Registration
This section registers the "application/token-introspection+jwt"
media type in the "Media Types" registry [IANA.MediaTypes] in the
manner described in [RFC6838], which can be used to indicate that the
content is a token introspection response in JWT format.
11.3.1. Registry Contents
* Type name: application
* Subtype name: token-introspection+jwt
* Required parameters: N/A
* Optional parameters: N/A
* Encoding considerations: binary; A token introspection response is
a JWT; JWT values are encoded as a series of base64url-encoded
values (with trailing '=' characters removed), some of which may
be the empty string, separated by period ('.') characters.
* Security considerations: See Section 7 of this specification
* Interoperability considerations: N/A
* Published specification: Section 4 of this specification
* Applications that use this media type: Applications that produce
and consume OAuth Token Introspection Responses in JWT format
* Fragment identifier considerations: N/A
* Additional information:
- Magic number(s): N/A
Lodderstedt & Dzhuvinov Expires 8 March 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft JWT Response September 2021
- File extension(s): N/A
- Macintosh file type code(s): N/A
* Person & email address to contact for further information: Torsten
Lodderstedt, torsten@lodderstedt.net
* Intended usage: COMMON
* Restrictions on usage: none
* Author: Torsten Lodderstedt, torsten@lodderstedt.net
* Change controller: IESG
* Provisional registration? No
11.4. JWT Claim Registration
This section registers the "token_introspection" claim in the JSON
Web Token (JWT) IANA registry [IANA.JWT] in the manner described in
[RFC7519].
11.4.1. Registry Contents
* Claim name: token_introspection
* Claim description: Token introspection response
* Change Controller: IESG
* Specification Document(s): Section 5 of [[this specification]]
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-oauth-jwt-bcp]
Sheffer, Y., Hardt, D., and M. Jones, "JSON Web Token Best
Current Practices", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bcp-06, 7 June 2019,
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-
bcp-06.txt>.
Lodderstedt & Dzhuvinov Expires 8 March 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft JWT Response September 2021
[I-D.ietf-oauth-security-topics]
Lodderstedt, T., Bradley, J., Labunets, A., and D. Fett,
"OAuth 2.0 Security Best Current Practice", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-oauth-security-
topics-13, 8 July 2019, <http://www.ietf.org/internet-
drafts/draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-13.txt>.
[IANA.JWT] IANA, "JSON Web Token (JWT) claims registry",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/jwt/jwt.xhtml#claims>.
[IANA.MediaTypes]
IANA, "Media Types",
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types>.
[IANA.OAuth.Token.Introspection]
IANA, "OAuth Token Introspection Response registry",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/oauth-parameters/oauth-
parameters.xhtml#token-introspection-response>.
[OpenID.Registration]
Sakimura, N., Bradley, J., and M. Jones, "OpenID Connect
Dynamic Client Registration 1.0 incorporating errata set
1", 8 November 2014, <https://openid.net/specs/openid-
connect-registration-1_0.html>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC6838] Freed, N., Klensin, J., and T. Hansen, "Media Type
Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13,
RFC 6838, DOI 10.17487/RFC6838, January 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6838>.
[RFC7515] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web
Signature (JWS)", RFC 7515, DOI 10.17487/RFC7515, May
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7515>.
[RFC7516] Jones, M. and J. Hildebrand, "JSON Web Encryption (JWE)",
RFC 7516, DOI 10.17487/RFC7516, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7516>.
[RFC7518] Jones, M., "JSON Web Algorithms (JWA)", RFC 7518,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7518, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7518>.
Lodderstedt & Dzhuvinov Expires 8 March 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft JWT Response September 2021
[RFC7519] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token
(JWT)", RFC 7519, DOI 10.17487/RFC7519, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7519>.
[RFC7525] Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre,
"Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer
Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
(DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 7525, DOI 10.17487/RFC7525, May
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7525>.
[RFC7591] Richer, J., Ed., Jones, M., Bradley, J., Machulak, M., and
P. Hunt, "OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration Protocol",
RFC 7591, DOI 10.17487/RFC7591, July 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7591>.
[RFC7662] Richer, J., Ed., "OAuth 2.0 Token Introspection",
RFC 7662, DOI 10.17487/RFC7662, October 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7662>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8414] Jones, M., Sakimura, N., and J. Bradley, "OAuth 2.0
Authorization Server Metadata", RFC 8414,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8414, June 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8414>.
12.2. Informative References
[IANA.OAuth.Parameters]
IANA, "OAuth Parameters",
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/oauth-parameters>.
Appendix A. Document History
[[ To be removed from the final specification ]]
-12
* made registration of response parameters intended for cross domain
use a MUST ( in RFC 7662)
-11
* consistent normative language that the AS must authenticate all
callers to the token introspection endpoint when complying with
this specification
Lodderstedt & Dzhuvinov Expires 8 March 2022 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft JWT Response September 2021
* removes text that claims from the JSON Web Token Claims registry
may be included in the token_introspection claim
* updates the privacy considerations section
* fixes the example BASE64URL encoded JWT payload
-10
* added requirement to authenticate RS if privacy sensitive data is
released
* reworked text on claims from different registries
* added forward reference to privacy considerations to section 5
* added text in privacy considerations regarding client/user
tracking
-09
* changes the Accept and Content-Type HTTP headers from
"application/json" to "application/token-introspection+jwt" so
they match the registered media type
* moves the token introspection response members into a JSON object
claim named "token_introspection" to provide isolation from the
top-level JWT-specific claims
* "iss", "aud" and "iat" MUST be present as top-level JWT claims
* the "sub" and "exp" claims SHOULD NOT be used as top-level JWT
claims as additional prevention against JWT access token
substitution attacks
-08
* made difference between introspected access token and
introspection response clearer
* defined semantics of JWT claims overlapping between introspected
access token and introspection response as JWT
* added section about RS management
* added text about user claims including a privacy considerations
section
Lodderstedt & Dzhuvinov Expires 8 March 2022 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft JWT Response September 2021
* removed registration of OpenID Connect claims to "Token
Introspection Response" registry and refer to "JWT Claims"
registry instead
* added registration of "application/token-introspection+jwt" media
type as type identifier of token introspection responses in JWT
format
* more changed to incorporate IESG review feedback
-07
* fixed wrong description of "locale"
* added references for ISO and ITU specifications
-06
* replaced reference to RFC 7159 with reference to RFC 8259
-05
* improved wording for TLS requirement
* added RFC 2119 boilerplate
* fixed and updated some references
-04
* reworked definition of parameters in section 4
* added text on data minimization to security considerations section
* added statement regarding TLS to security considerations section
-03
* added registration for OpenID Connect Standard Claims to OAuth
Token Introspection Response registry
-02
* updated references
-01
Lodderstedt & Dzhuvinov Expires 8 March 2022 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft JWT Response September 2021
* adapted wording to preclude any accept header except "application/
jwt" if encrypted responses are required
* use registered alg value RS256 for default signing algorithm
* added text on claims in the token introspection response
-00
* initial version of the WG draft
* defined default signing algorithm
* changed behavior in case resource server is set up for encryption
* Added text on token data leakage prevention to the security
considerations
* moved Security Considerations section forward
WG draft
-01
* fixed typos in client meta data field names
* added OAuth Server Metadata parameters to publish algorithms
supported for signing and encrypting the introspection response
* added registration of new parameters for OAuth Server Metadata and
Client Registration
* added explicit request for JWT introspection response
* made iss and aud claims mandatory in introspection response
* Stylistic and clarifying edits, updates references
-00
* initial version
Authors' Addresses
Torsten Lodderstedt (editor)
yes.com AG
Email: torsten@lodderstedt.net
Lodderstedt & Dzhuvinov Expires 8 March 2022 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft JWT Response September 2021
Vladimir Dzhuvinov
Connect2id Ltd.
Email: vladimir@connect2id.com
Lodderstedt & Dzhuvinov Expires 8 March 2022 [Page 19]