Hi,
Just one remark, the example in [1] shows "client_id"; IMHO it makes
sense to clarify than in this context (where the assertion is used as a
grant), it is optional as per:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749#section-3.2.1
"A client MAY use the "client_id" request parameter to identify itself
when sending requests to the token endpoint"
and otherwise
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749#section-2.3
dictates how the client authentication is done.
By the way, my reading of the main spec's section 2.3 tells me that the
only time one would use only "client_id" in the form payload is when the
client secret is empty or perhaps the client is not in the possession of
the secret.
Does it make sense to completely drop a "client_id" parameter in the
example at [1] in the assertion draft and use an example with a Basic
authentication instead ?
Thanks, Sergey
On 15/03/13 22:12, Brian Campbell wrote:
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
