Yeah ... I forgot about that. I remember figuring that out at one point and then I guess I lost it. So right, my vote would be to make it more clear, either by repeating the full list of params (my vote) or by at least making a reference. It would be nice to be able to read the JWT or SAML profiles as a self-contained doc.
adam From: Brian Campbell [mailto:bcampb...@pingidentity.com] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 5:13 PM To: Lewis Adam-CAL022 Cc: Sergey Beryozkin; oauth@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT grant_type and client_id So currently the base assertion document defines scope as an HTTP parameter on the access token request message when using an assertion as a grant[1]. And that applies to both the SAML and JWT grants (perhaps that needs to be more clear?). Also RFC 6749 defines the scope parameter for the client credentials access token request[2], which similarly applies to both SAML and JWT in the case of assertion client authentication using the "client_credentials" grant type. [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-assertions-10#section-4.1 [2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749#section-4.4.1 On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Lewis Adam-CAL022 <adam.le...@motorolasolutions.com<mailto:adam.le...@motorolasolutions.com>> wrote: Right ... thinking about this further I think the answer is "all of the above." If the JWT is a grant type then as you say it needs a scope param and optionally a client_id param. I argued for the client_id param earlier since it could assist with HOK scenarios once those further develop. But when the JWT is used as an AT then it will definitely require the scope as a claim. So I change my argument to "both" :) adam -----Original Message----- From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org> [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Sergey Beryozkin Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 4:31 PM To: oauth@ietf.org<mailto:oauth@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT grant_type and client_id Hi On 15/03/13 20:40, Lewis Adam-CAL022 wrote: > Hi John, > > I would like to argue that the scope should be a parameter in the access > token request message, the same as it is for the RO creds grant and > client creds grant type. This would keep it consistent with the core > OAuth grant types that talk directly to the token endpoint. > Assuming the assertion is acting as a grant, then it is indeed an access token request message, so IMHO it makes sense to get an outbound scope parameter optionally supported which I guess will imply that the client id will also have to accompany it... Cheers, Sergey > Thoughts? > > adam > > *From:*John Bradley [mailto:ve7...@ve7jtb.com<mailto:ve7...@ve7jtb.com>] > *Sent:* Friday, March 15, 2013 12:10 PM > *To:* Lewis Adam-CAL022 > *Cc:* Brian Campbell; "WG > <oauth@ietf.org<mailto:oauth@ietf.org>>"@il06exr02.mot.com<http://il06exr02.mot.com> > *Subject:* Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT grant_type and client_id > > The spec is a touch vague on that. I think the scopes should be in the > assertion and the client can use the scopes outside the assertion to > down-scope. > > Having a standard claim in JWT and SAML for passing scopes is probably > useful as part of a profile. > > John B. > > On 2013-03-14, at 8:47 PM, Lewis Adam-CAL022 > <adam.le...@motorolasolutions.com<mailto:adam.le...@motorolasolutions.com> > <mailto:adam.le...@motorolasolutions.com<mailto:adam.le...@motorolasolutions.com>>> > wrote: > > > > Hmmm, one more thought ... no scope?? The JWT is the grant, is it assumed > that the scope is conveyed as a claim within the token? Otherwise it > would seem that it would require a scope. > > Thoughts? > > adam > > *From:*Brian Campbell > [mailto:bcampb...@pingidentity.com<mailto:bcampb...@pingidentity.com> > <http://pingidentity.com>] > *Sent:*Thursday, March 14, 2013 4:44 PM > *To:*Lewis Adam-CAL022 > *Cc:*Mike Jones; "WG <oauth@ietf.org<mailto:oauth@ietf.org> > <mailto:oauth@ietf.org<mailto:oauth@ietf.org>>>"@il06exr02.mot.com<http://il06exr02.mot.com> > <http://il06exr02.mot.com> > *Subject:*Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT grant_type and client_id > > Yes, that is correct. > > I'm working on new revisions of the drafts that will hopefully make that > point more clear. > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Lewis Adam-CAL022 > <adam.le...@motorolasolutions.com<mailto:adam.le...@motorolasolutions.com> > <mailto:adam.le...@motorolasolutions.com<mailto:adam.le...@motorolasolutions.com>>> > wrote: > > Coming back to this... am I correct in that client_id is not required? We > are implementing this spec and want to make sure that we are doing it right. > By my understanding the only two parameters that are required in the JWT > grant type are "urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:jwt-bearer" and the > assertion. Is this correct? > > *From:*Mike Jones > [mailto:michael.jo...@microsoft.com<mailto:michael.jo...@microsoft.com> > <mailto:michael.jo...@microsoft.com<mailto:michael.jo...@microsoft.com>>] > *Sent:*Monday, February 18, 2013 6:58 PM > *To:*Lewis Adam-CAL022;oauth@ietf.org<mailto:adam-cal022%3boa...@ietf.org> > <mailto:oauth@ietf.org<mailto:oauth@ietf.org>>WG > *Subject:*RE: JWT grant_type and client_id > > The client_id value and the access token value are independent. > > -- Mike > > *From:*oauth-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org> > <mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org>>[mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org> > <mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org>>]*On Behalf > Of*Lewis Adam-CAL022 > *Sent:*Monday, February 18, 2013 2:50 PM > *To:*oauth@ietf.org<mailto:oauth@ietf.org> > <mailto:oauth@ietf.org<mailto:oauth@ietf.org>>WG > *Subject:*[OAUTH-WG] JWT grant_type and client_id > > Is there any guidance on the usage of client_id when using the JWT > assertion profile as a grant type? draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-04 makes > no mention so I assume that it is not required ... but it would be > necessary if using in conjunction with a HOK profile where the JWT > assertion is issued to - and may only be used by - the intended client. > Obviously this is straight forward enough, really I'm just looking to be > sure that I'm not missing anything. > > tx > > adam > > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> > <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> > <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > > > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
