Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer
draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer
OAuth Working Group M. Jones
Internet-Draft Microsoft
Intended status: Standards Track B. Campbell
Expires: May 16, 2015 Ping Identity
C. Mortimore
Salesforce
November 12, 2014
JSON Web Token (JWT) Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and
Authorization Grants
draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-12
Abstract
This specification defines the use of a JSON Web Token (JWT) Bearer
Token as a means for requesting an OAuth 2.0 access token as well as
for use as a means of client authentication.
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 http://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 May 16, 2015.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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
(http://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
Jones, et al. Expires May 16, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft OAuth JWT Assertion Profiles November 2014
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. HTTP Parameter Bindings for Transporting Assertions . . . . . 4
2.1. Using JWTs as Authorization Grants . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Using JWTs for Client Authentication . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. JWT Format and Processing Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Authorization Grant Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Client Authentication Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Authorization Grant Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Interoperability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.1. Sub-Namespace Registration of urn:ietf:params:oauth
:grant-type:jwt-bearer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.2. Sub-Namespace Registration of urn:ietf:params:oauth
:client-assertion-type:jwt-bearer . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix B. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
JSON Web Token (JWT) [JWT] is a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)
[RFC7159] based security token encoding that enables identity and
security information to be shared across security domains. A
security token is generally issued by an identity provider and
consumed by a relying party that relies on its content to identify
the token's subject for security related purposes.
The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework [RFC6749] provides a method for
making authenticated HTTP requests to a resource using an access
token. Access tokens are issued to third-party clients by an
authorization server (AS) with the (sometimes implicit) approval of
the resource owner. In OAuth, an authorization grant is an abstract
term used to describe intermediate credentials that represent the
resource owner authorization. An authorization grant is used by the
client to obtain an access token. Several authorization grant types
are defined to support a wide range of client types and user
Jones, et al. Expires May 16, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft OAuth JWT Assertion Profiles November 2014
experiences. OAuth also allows for the definition of new extension
grant types to support additional clients or to provide a bridge
between OAuth and other trust frameworks. Finally, OAuth allows the
definition of additional authentication mechanisms to be used by
clients when interacting with the authorization server.
The Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and
Authorization Grants [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions] specification is an
abstract extension to OAuth 2.0 that provides a general framework for
the use of Assertions (a.k.a. Security Tokens) as client credentials
and/or authorization grants with OAuth 2.0. This specification
profiles the Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication
and Authorization Grants [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions] specification to
define an extension grant type that uses a JSON Web Token (JWT)
Bearer Token to request an OAuth 2.0 access token as well as for use
as client credentials. The format and processing rules for the JWT
defined in this specification are intentionally similar, though not
identical, to those in the closely related SAML 2.0 Profile for OAuth
2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants
[I-D.ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer] specification. The differences arise
where the structure and semantics of JWTs differ from SAML
assertions. JWTs, for example, have no direct equivalent to the
<SubjectConfirmation> or <AuthnStatement> elements of SAML
assertions.
This document defines how a JSON Web Token (JWT) Bearer Token can be
used to request an access token when a client wishes to utilize an
existing trust relationship, expressed through the semantics of (and
digital signature or Message Authentication Code calculated over) the
JWT, without a direct user approval step at the authorization server.
It also defines how a JWT can be used as a client authentication
mechanism. The use of a security token for client authentication is
orthogonal to and separable from using a security token as an
authorization grant. They can be used either in combination or
separately. Client authentication using a JWT is nothing more than
an alternative way for a client to authenticate to the token endpoint
and must be used in conjunction with some grant type to form a
complete and meaningful protocol request. JWT authorization grants
may be used with or without client authentication or identification.
Whether or not client authentication is needed in conjunction with a
JWT authorization grant, as well as the supported types of client
authentication, are policy decisions at the discretion of the
authorization server.
The process by which the client obtains the JWT, prior to exchanging
it with the authorization server or using it for client
authentication, is out of scope.
Jones, et al. Expires May 16, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft OAuth JWT Assertion Profiles November 2014
1.1. Notational Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Unless otherwise noted, all the protocol parameter names and values
are case sensitive.
1.2. Terminology
All terms are as defined in The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework
[RFC6749], the Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client
Authentication and Authorization Grants [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions],
and the JSON Web Token (JWT) [JWT] specifications.
2. HTTP Parameter Bindings for Transporting Assertions
The Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and
Authorization Grants [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions] specification
defines generic HTTP parameters for transporting Assertions (a.k.a.
Security Tokens) during interactions with a token endpoint. This
section defines specific parameters and treatments of those
parameters for use with JWT bearer tokens.
2.1. Using JWTs as Authorization Grants
To use a Bearer JWT as an authorization grant, the client uses an
access token request as defined in Section 4 of the Assertion
Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization
Grants [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions] specification with the following
specific parameter values and encodings.
The value of the "grant_type" is "urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-
type:jwt-bearer".
The value of the "assertion" parameter MUST contain a single JWT.
The "scope" parameter may be used, as defined in the Assertion
Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization
Grants [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions] specification, to indicate the
requested scope.
Authentication of the client is optional, as described in
Section 3.2.1 of OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749] and consequently, the
"client_id" is only needed when a form of client authentication that
relies on the parameter is used.
Jones, et al. Expires May 16, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft OAuth JWT Assertion Profiles November 2014
The following example demonstrates an Access Token Request with a JWT
as an authorization grant (with extra line breaks for display
purposes only):
POST /token.oauth2 HTTP/1.1
Host: as.example.com
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
grant_type=urn%3Aietf%3Aparams%3Aoauth%3Agrant-type%3Ajwt-bearer
&assertion=eyJhbGciOiJFUzI1NiJ9.
eyJpc3Mi[...omitted for brevity...].
J9l-ZhwP[...omitted for brevity...]
2.2. Using JWTs for Client Authentication
To use a JWT Bearer Token for client authentication, the client uses
the following parameter values and encodings.
The value of the "client_assertion_type" is
"urn:ietf:params:oauth:client-assertion-type:jwt-bearer".
The value of the "client_assertion" parameter contains a single JWT.
It MUST NOT contain more than one JWT.
The following example demonstrates client authentication using a JWT
during the presentation of an authorization code grant in an Access
Token Request (with extra line breaks for display purposes only):
POST /token.oauth2 HTTP/1.1
Host: as.example.com
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
grant_type=authorization_code&
code=vAZEIHjQTHuGgaSvyW9hO0RpusLzkvTOww3trZBxZpo&
client_assertion_type=urn%3Aietf%3Aparams%3Aoauth%3A
client-assertion-type%3Ajwt-bearer&
client_assertion=eyJhbGciOiJSUzI1NiJ9.
eyJpc3Mi[...omitted for brevity...].
cC4hiUPo[...omitted for brevity...]
3. JWT Format and Processing Requirements
In order to issue an access token response as described in OAuth 2.0
[RFC6749] or to rely on a JWT for client authentication, the
authorization server MUST validate the JWT according to the criteria
below. Application of additional restrictions and policy are at the
discretion of the authorization server.
Jones, et al. Expires May 16, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft OAuth JWT Assertion Profiles November 2014
1. The JWT MUST contain an "iss" (issuer) claim that contains a
unique identifier for the entity that issued the JWT. In the
absence of an application profile specifying otherwise,
compliant applications MUST compare Issuer values using the
Simple String Comparison method defined in Section 6.2.1 of RFC
3986 [RFC3986].
2. The JWT MUST contain a "sub" (subject) claim identifying the
principal that is the subject of the JWT. Two cases need to be
differentiated:
A. For the authorization grant, the subject typically
identifies an authorized accessor for which the access token
is being requested (i.e., the resource owner or an
authorized delegate), but in some cases, may be a
pseudonymous identifier or other value denoting an anonymous
user.
B. For client authentication, the subject MUST be the
"client_id" of the OAuth client.
3. The JWT MUST contain an "aud" (audience) claim containing a
value that identifies the authorization server as an intended
audience. The token endpoint URL of the authorization server
MAY be used as a value for an "aud" element to identify the
authorization server as an intended audience of the JWT. The
Authorization Server MUST reject any JWT that does not contain
its own identity as the intended audience In the absence of an
application profile specifying otherwise, compliant applications
MUST compare the audience values using the Simple String
Comparison method defined in Section 6.2.1 of RFC 3986
[RFC3986]. As noted in Section 5, the precise strings to be
used as the audience for a given Authorization Server must be
configured out-of-band by the Authorization Server and the
Issuer of the JWT.
4. The JWT MUST contain an "exp" (expiration) claim that limits the
time window during which the JWT can be used. The authorization
server MUST reject any JWT with an expiration time that has
passed, subject to allowable clock skew between systems. Note
that the authorization server may reject JWTs with an "exp"
claim value that is unreasonably far in the future.
5. The JWT MAY contain an "nbf" (not before) claim that identifies
the time before which the token MUST NOT be accepted for
processing.
Jones, et al. Expires May 16, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft OAuth JWT Assertion Profiles November 2014
6. The JWT MAY contain an "iat" (issued at) claim that identifies
the time at which the JWT was issued. Note that the
authorization server may reject JWTs with an "iat" claim value
that is unreasonably far in the past.
7. The JWT MAY contain a "jti" (JWT ID) claim that provides a
unique identifier for the token. The authorization server MAY
ensure that JWTs are not replayed by maintaining the set of used
"jti" values for the length of time for which the JWT would be
considered valid based on the applicable "exp" instant.
8. The JWT MAY contain other claims.
9. The JWT MUST be digitally signed or have a Message
Authentication Code applied by the issuer. The authorization
server MUST reject JWTs with an invalid signature or Message
Authentication Code.
10. The authorization server MUST reject a JWT that is not valid in
all other respects per JSON Web Token (JWT) [JWT].
3.1. Authorization Grant Processing
JWT authorization grants may be used with or without client
authentication or identification. Whether or not client
authentication is needed in conjunction with a JWT authorization
grant, as well as the supported types of client authentication, are
policy decisions at the discretion of the authorization server.
However, if client credentials are present in the request, the
authorization server MUST validate them.
If the JWT is not valid, or the current time is not within the
token's valid time window for use, the authorization server
constructs an error response as defined in OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749]. The
value of the "error" parameter MUST be the "invalid_grant" error
code. The authorization server MAY include additional information
regarding the reasons the JWT was considered invalid using the
"error_description" or "error_uri" parameters.
Jones, et al. Expires May 16, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft OAuth JWT Assertion Profiles November 2014
For example:
HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
Content-Type: application/json
Cache-Control: no-store
{
"error":"invalid_grant",
"error_description":"Audience validation failed"
}
3.2. Client Authentication Processing
If the client JWT is not valid, the authorization server constructs
an error response as defined in OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749]. The value of
the "error" parameter MUST be the "invalid_client" error code. The
authorization server MAY include additional information regarding the
reasons the JWT was considered invalid using the "error_description"
or "error_uri" parameters.
4. Authorization Grant Example
The following examples illustrate what a conforming JWT and an access
token request would look like.
The example shows a JWT issued and signed by the system entity
identified as "https://jwt-idp.example.com". The subject of the JWT
is identified by email address as "mike@example.com". The intended
audience of the JWT is "https://jwt-rp.example.net", which is an
identifier with which the authorization server identifies itself.
The JWT is sent as part of an access token request to the
authorization server's token endpoint at "https://authz.example.net/
token.oauth2".
Below is an example JSON object that could be encoded to produce the
JWT Claims Object for a JWT:
{"iss":"https://jwt-idp.example.com",
"sub":"mailto:mike@example.com",
"aud":"https://jwt-rp.example.net",
"nbf":1300815780,
"exp":1300819380,
"http://claims.example.com/member":true}
Jones, et al. Expires May 16, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft OAuth JWT Assertion Profiles November 2014
The following example JSON object, used as the header of a JWT,
declares that the JWT is signed with the ECDSA P-256 SHA-256
algorithm.
{"alg":"ES256"}
To present the JWT with the claims and header shown in the previous
example as part of an access token request, for example, the client
might make the following HTTPS request (with extra line breaks for
display purposes only):
POST /token.oauth2 HTTP/1.1
Host: authz.example.net
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
grant_type=urn%3Aietf%3Aparams%3Aoauth%3Agrant-type%3Ajwt-bearer
&assertion=eyJhbGciOiJFUzI1NiJ9.
eyJpc3Mi[...omitted for brevity...].
J9l-ZhwP[...omitted for brevity...]
5. Interoperability Considerations
Agreement between system entities regarding identifiers, keys, and
endpoints is required in order to achieve interoperable deployments
of this profile. Specific items that require agreement are as
follows: values for the issuer and audience identifiers, the location
of the token endpoint, the key used to apply and verify the digital
signature or Message Authentication Code over the JWT, one-time use
restrictions on the JWT, maximum JWT lifetime allowed, and the
specific subject and claim requirements of the JWT. The exchange of
such information is explicitly out of scope for this specification.
In some cases, additional profiles may be created that constrain or
prescribe these values or specify how they are to be exchanged.
Examples of such profiles include the OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client
Registration Core Protocol [I-D.ietf-oauth-dyn-reg], OpenID Connect
Dynamic Client Registration 1.0 [OpenID.Registration], and OpenID
Connect Discovery 1.0 [OpenID.Discovery].
The "RS256" algorithm, from [I-D.ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms], is a
mandatory to implement JSON Web Signature algorithm for this profile.
6. Security Considerations
The security considerations described within the Assertion Framework
for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants
[I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions], The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework
[RFC6749], and the JSON Web Token (JWT) [JWT] specifications are all
applicable to this document.
Jones, et al. Expires May 16, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft OAuth JWT Assertion Profiles November 2014
The specification does not mandate replay protection for the JWT
usage for either the authorization grant or for client
authentication. It is an optional feature, which implementations may
employ at their own discretion.
7. Privacy Considerations
A JWT may contain privacy-sensitive information and, to prevent
disclosure of such information to unintended parties, should only be
transmitted over encrypted channels, such as TLS. In cases where it
is desirable to prevent disclosure of certain information to the
client, the JWT should be be encrypted to the authorization server.
Deployments should determine the minimum amount of information
necessary to complete the exchange and include only such claims in
the JWT. In some cases, the "sub" (subject) claim can be a value
representing an anonymous or pseudonymous user, as described in
Section 6.3.1 of the Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client
Authentication and Authorization Grants [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions].
8. IANA Considerations
8.1. Sub-Namespace Registration of urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-
type:jwt-bearer
This specification registers the value "grant-type:jwt-bearer" in the
IANA urn:ietf:params:oauth registry established in An IETF URN Sub-
Namespace for OAuth [RFC6755].
o URN: urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:jwt-bearer
o Common Name: JWT Bearer Token Grant Type Profile for OAuth 2.0
o Change controller: IESG
o Specification Document: [[this document]]
8.2. Sub-Namespace Registration of urn:ietf:params:oauth:client-
assertion-type:jwt-bearer
This specification registers the value "client-assertion-type:jwt-
bearer" in the IANA urn:ietf:params:oauth registry established in An
IETF URN Sub-Namespace for OAuth [RFC6755].
o URN: urn:ietf:params:oauth:client-assertion-type:jwt-bearer
o Common Name: JWT Bearer Token Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client
Authentication
Jones, et al. Expires May 16, 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft OAuth JWT Assertion Profiles November 2014
o Change controller: IESG
o Specification Document: [[this document]]
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms]
Jones, M., "JSON Web Algorithms (JWA)", draft-ietf-jose-
json-web-algorithms-36 (work in progress), October 2014.
[I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions]
Campbell, B., Mortimore, C., Jones, M., and Y. Goland,
"Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication
and Authorization Grants", draft-ietf-oauth-assertions
(work in progress), October 2014.
[JWT] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token
(JWT)", draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token (work in
progress), October 2014.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC
3986, January 2005.
[RFC6749] Hardt, D., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework", RFC
6749, October 2012.
[RFC7159] Bray, T., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
Interchange Format", RFC 7159, March 2014.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-oauth-dyn-reg]
Richer, J., Jones, M., Bradley, J., Machulak, M., and P.
Hunt, "OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration Protocol",
draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-20 (work in progress), August
2014.
[I-D.ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer]
Campbell, B., Mortimore, C., and M. Jones, "SAML 2.0
Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and
Authorization Grants", draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer (work
in progress), November 2014.
Jones, et al. Expires May 16, 2015 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft OAuth JWT Assertion Profiles November 2014
[OpenID.Discovery]
Sakimura, N., Bradley, J., Jones, M., and E. Jay, "OpenID
Connect Discovery 1.0", February 2014.
[OpenID.Registration]
Sakimura, N., Bradley, J., and M. Jones, "OpenID Connect
Dynamic Client Registration 1.0", February 2014.
[RFC6755] Campbell, B. and H. Tschofenig, "An IETF URN Sub-Namespace
for OAuth", RFC 6755, October 2012.
Appendix A. Acknowledgements
This profile was derived from SAML 2.0 Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client
Authentication and Authorization Grants [I-D.ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer]
by Brian Campbell and Chuck Mortimore.
Appendix B. Document History
[[ to be removed by the RFC editor before publication as an RFC ]]
draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-12
o Fix typo per http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/
msg13790.html
draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-11
o Changes/suggestions from IESG reviews.
draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-10
o Added Privacy Considerations section per AD review discussion
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg13148.html
and http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/
msg13144.html
draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-09
o Clarified some text around the treatment of subject based on the
rough rough consensus from the thread staring at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg12630.html
draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-08
o Updated references, including replacing references to RFC 4627
with RFC 7159.
Jones, et al. Expires May 16, 2015 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft OAuth JWT Assertion Profiles November 2014
draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-07
o Clean up language around subject per http://www.ietf.org/mail-
archive/web/oauth/current/msg12250.html.
o As suggested in http://www.ietf.org/mail-
archive/web/oauth/current/msg12251.html stated that "In the
absence of an application profile specifying otherwise, compliant
applications MUST compare the audience values using the Simple
String Comparison method defined in Section 6.2.1 of RFC 3986."
o Added one-time use, maximum lifetime, and specific subject and
attribute requirements to Interoperability Considerations based on
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg12252.html.
o Remove "or its subject confirmation requirements cannot be met"
text.
o Reword security considerations and mention that replay protection
is not mandated based on http://www.ietf.org/mail-
archive/web/oauth/current/msg12259.html.
-06
o Stated that issuer and audience values SHOULD be compared using
the Simple String Comparison method defined in Section 6.2.1 of
RFC 3986 unless otherwise specified by the application.
-05
o Changed title from "JSON Web Token (JWT) Bearer Token Profiles for
OAuth 2.0" to "JSON Web Token (JWT) Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client
Authentication and Authorization Grants" to be more explicit about
the scope of the document per http://www.ietf.org/mail-
archive/web/oauth/current/msg11063.html.
o Numbered the list of processing rules.
o Smallish editorial cleanups to try and improve readability and
comprehensibility.
o Cleaner split out of the processing rules in cases where they
differ for client authentication and authorization grants.
o Clarified the parameters that are used/available for authorization
grants.
o Added Interoperability Considerations section.
Jones, et al. Expires May 16, 2015 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft OAuth JWT Assertion Profiles November 2014
o Added more explanatory context to the example in Section 4.
-04
o Changed the name of the "prn" claim to "sub" (subject) both to
more closely align with SAML name usage and to use a more
intuitive name.
o Added seriesInfo information to Internet Draft references.
-03
o Reference RFC 6749 and RFC 6755.
-02
o Add more text to intro explaining that an assertion/JWT grant type
can be used with or without client authentication/identification
and that client assertion/JWT authentication is nothing more than
an alternative way for a client to authenticate to the token
endpoint
o Add examples to Sections 2.1 and 2.2
o Update references
-01
o Tracked specification name changes: "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization
Protocol" to "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework" and "OAuth
2.0 Assertion Profile" to "Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0".
o Merged in changes between draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer-11 and
draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer-13. All changes were strictly
editorial.
-00
o Created the initial IETF draft based upon draft-jones-oauth-jwt-
bearer-04 with no normative changes.
Authors' Addresses
Michael B. Jones
Microsoft
Email: mbj@microsoft.com
URI: http://self-issued.info/
Jones, et al. Expires May 16, 2015 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft OAuth JWT Assertion Profiles November 2014
Brian Campbell
Ping Identity
Email: brian.d.campbell@gmail.com
Chuck Mortimore
Salesforce
Email: cmortimore@salesforce.com
Jones, et al. Expires May 16, 2015 [Page 15]
