Hi Benjamin,
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 04:29:43PM +0200, Denis wrote:
Since then, I questioned myself how a client would be able to request an
access token that would be
*strictly compliant with this Profile*.
I don't understand why this is an interesting question to ask. The access
token and interpretation thereof is (AIUI) generally seen as an internal
matter between AS and RS, with the client having no need to care about the
specifics.
This document is*_a_* Profile for OAuth 2.0 Access Tokens. It is not
_*the*_ Profile for *_all_ *OAuth 2.0 Access Tokens.
1) A client may wish to obtain an Access Token that corresponds to this
Profile because, for example,
this document mandates the "sub" claim to be present". Hence, the
content of the Access Token is not
totally "/an internal matter between AS and RS/".
However, I have not understood how a client could request an Access
Token that corresponds to *_this_***Profile,
since there is no mandatory parameter in the request (both the "scope"
parameter and the "resource" parameter are optional).
In the future, we could define _*another*_**Profile. Hence, there is the
same question: How could a client request an Access Token
that corresponds to *_that other_***Profile ?
2) When getting a JWT, how can the client make sure that the access
token it got is compliant with this Profile ?
RFC 8725 states in section 3.11 :
3.11. Use Explicit Typing
Sometimes, one kind of JWT can be confused for another. If a
particular kind of JWT is subject to such confusion,
that JWT can include an explicit JWT type value, and the validation
rules can specify checking the type (...).
Explicit JWT typing is accomplished by using the "typ" Header
Parameter.
Wouldn't be wise to include an explicit JWT type value for JWTs
conformant to this Profile ?
This relates to an email posted by Dominick Baier under the topic "JAR:
JWT typ" on May 19 :
This has been brought up before - but no response.
Either I can’t find it - or it is missing. But is the setting the
JWT typ explicitly mentioned somewhere?
Denis
To my knowledge, this WG has not previously given guidance
indicating that the client should be involved or specifics for how to do
so, and I do not remember seeing WG agreement that this should change.
-Ben
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
