OAuth Working Group                                 D.W.Chadwick
Internet Draft                           Crossword Cybersecurity
Intended status: Proposed Standard              February 9, 2022
Expires: August 9, 2022
                        JWT URI
         draft-chadwick-oauth-jwk-uri-00.txt

Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.
Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts.

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions
of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
https://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html

The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
https://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

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 August 9, 2022.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2022 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.


Chadwick         Expires August 9,2022       [Page 1]

Internet-Draft        JWT-URI


Abstract
This specification registers a kind of URI that represents a JSON
Web Key (JWK) value. This enables JWKs to be used, for instance, as
key identifiers in contexts requiring URIs.

Table of Contents
1. Introduction................................2
2. Requirements Notation and Conventions.......2
3. JWK URI.....................................3
4. Comparison of JWK URIs with JWK Thumbprint URIs...3
5. Security Considerations................4
6. IANA Considerations....................4
7. References..............................4
7.1. Normative References..................4
7.2. Informative References.................5
8. Acknowledgments..........................5

Appendix A. Document History................6

. Introduction

A JSON Web Key (JWK) [RFC7517] is a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)
data structure that represents a cryptographic key.
This specification defines a URI prefix indicating that the portion
of the URI following the prefix is a JWK. This enables JWKs to be
communicated in contexts requiring URIs, including in specific JSON
Web Token (JWT) [RFC7519] claims.
JWK URIs are proposed to be used in the [SIOPv2] specification as
one kind of subject identifier in a context requiring that the
identifier be a URI. In this case, the subject identifier is derived
from a public key represented as a JWK. Expressing the identifier as
a JWK URI enables this kind of identifier to be differentiated from
other kinds of identifiers that are also URIs, such as Decentralized
Identifiers (DIDs) [DID-Core].


Chadwick         Expires August 9,2022       [Page 2]

Internet-Draft        JWT-URI


. 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.
. JWK URI


The following URI prefix is defined to indicate that the portion of
the URI following the prefix is a JWK:

    o "urn:ietf:params:oauth:jwk"

The prefix MUST be followed by a colon and a JWK value that is formed by
performing a base64 encoding of the JWK to form a URI representing a
JWK.

. Comparison of JWK URIs with JWK Thumbprint URIs

To produce or validate a JWK Thumbprint, both the sender and the
receiver have to have the JWK available to them. Then they have to
canonicalise the JWK as described in [RFC7638], and finally hash the
octets of the UTF-8 representation of this JSON object with a pre-
agreed algorithm in order to both obtain the same hash value. The
way that the JWK Thumbprint URI is used in SIOPv2 [SIOPv2] is as
follows:

. the SIOP creates an asymmetric key pair and encodes the public
key as a JWK
. the SIOP creates the JWK Thumbprint as described in [RFC7638] and
converts it to a URI as described in [JONES]
. the SIOP passes both the JWK and JWK Thumbprint URI to the RP in
the JWT
. the RP extracts the JWK and JWK Thumbprint from the JWT
. the RP re-computes the JWK Thumbprint from the JWK
. the RP compares the computed JWK Thumbprint with the received JWK
Thumbprint to confirm that they are equal.


Chadwick         Expires August 9,2022       [Page 3]

Internet-Draft        JWT-URI

One can see that the use of JWK Thumbprint URIs is both inefficient
(in all cases) and a significant disadvantage (in some cases). If
the JWK URI (as described in this document) is transferred instead
of the JWK and JWK Thumbprint URI then:
a) The SIOP will never need to create the JWK Thumbprint URI. The RP
may only need to create the JWK Thumbprint if it needs this, for
example, as a unique subject identifier. Even in this case, there is
still an advantage to the RP in receiving the JWK URI instead of the
JWK Thumbprint URI, in that the RP no longer needs to pre-agree a
hashing algorithm with the SIOP. Thus the RP can independently
determine which hashing algorithm to use when creating its own JWK
Thumbprint.
(Note. If the SIOP were able to canonicalise the same
public key in a JWK in different ways and produce different
thumbprints from the same public key, then the canonicalisation
algorithm is broken, and the RP would never to able to
deterministically produce the same thumbprints each time.)

b) In those cases where the SIOP uses ephemeral key pairs and a
different public key each time it communicates with an RP, then
neither party needs to produce the JWK Thumbprint as it will never
be seen again. It is a significant disadvantage to have to use JWK
Thumbprints in this case.
One possible disadvantage of using JWK URIs instead of JWK
Thumbprint URIs is the resulting increase in size of the JWT. Base
 encoding a JWK string increases its size by 33%. However this
increase in JWT size is offset by the decrease in size by not
needing to include the JWT thumbprint URI as well as the JWK. The
trade off is the processing of JWKs to produce thumbprints by the
sender and receiver versus the overhead of transferring larger JWTs.

. Security Considerations
The security considerations of [RFC7638] will apply when the RP is
using [RFC7638] to produce thumbprints.


Chadwick         Expires August 9,2022       [Page 4]

Internet-Draft        JWT-URI


. IANA Considerations
6.1. OAuth URI Registration
This specification proposes to register the following value in the
IANA "OAuth URI" registry [IANA.OAuth.Parameters] established by
[RFC6755].
6.1.1. Registry Contents

o URN: urn:ietf:params:oauth:jwk
o Common Name: JWK URI
o Change controller: IESG
o Specification Document: [[ this specification ]]

. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[IANA.OAuth.Parameters] IANA, "OAuth Parameters",
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/oauth-parameters>.
[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.rfceditor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC7638] Jones, M. and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Key (JWK)
Thumbprint", RFC 7638, DOI 10.17487/RFC7638, September
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7638>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.


Chadwick         Expires August 9,2022       [Page 5]

Internet-Draft        JWT-URI

7.2. Informative References

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[DID-Core] Sporny, M., Guy, A., Sabadello, M., and D. Reed,
"Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) v1.0", Aug 2021,
<https://www.w3.org/TR/2021/PR-did-core-20210803/>.
[RFC6755] Campbell, B. and H. Tschofenig, "An IETF URN Sub-Namespace
for OAuth", RFC 6755, DOI 10.17487/RFC6755, October 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6755>.
[RFC7517] Jones, M., "JSON Web Key (JWK)", RFC 7517, DOI
10.17487/RFC7517, May 2015,
<https://www.rfceditor.org/info/rfc7517>.
[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>.
[SIOPv2] Yasuda, K. and M. B. Jones, "Self-Issued OpenID Provider
v2", December 2021,
<https://openid.net/specs/openidconnect-self-issued-v2-1_0.html>.

[JONES] Yasuda, K., Jones, M., "JWK Thumbprint URK", Internet
Draft draft-ietf-oauth-jwk-thumbprint-uri-00

. Acknowledgments

to be done.

Appendix A. Document History

[[ to be removed by the RFC Editor before publication as an
RFC ]]
-00
o Created initial draft.
Authors' Addresses
David W Chadwick
Crossword Cybersecurity
Email: david.chadwick@crosswordcybersecurity.com
URI: https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwchadwick/


Chadwick     Expires August 9,2022     [Page 6]