I agree with the other comments so far. This doesn't seem to be adding
anything that you can't already do with RFC7523.

You wrote:

> In the jwt-bearer grant, the client presents a JWT it has signed, and the
Authorization Server validates it using a public key that has been
pre-registered or exchanged.

RFC7523 doesn't specify how the JWT was signed. In fact it says "The JWT
MUST contain an "iss" (issuer) claim that contains a unique identifier for
the entity that issued the JWT." The public key does not need to be
pre-registered unless you want it to be.

We have implementations of this now where an IdP signs the JWT that is
presented as a jwt-bearer grant type, based on
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-identity-chaining/ and
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-identity-assertion-authz-grant/
I've also had several conversations with people working on similar
workload-ish scenarios and guided them towards using the jwt-bearer grant
type successfully.

Aaron


On Fri, Oct 3, 2025 at 6:30 AM Lombardo, Jeff <jeffsec=
[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> That was an interesting read thanks. I have few questions:
>
>
>    - When you said that:
>
>
> *- In the jwt-bearer grant, the client presents a JWT it has signed, and
> the Authorization Server validates it using a public key that has been
> pre-registered or exchanged.*
> *- In the external-assertion grant, the JWT is issued by an
> external entity the AS already trusts (for example, a federated IdP). The
> AS validates it using that IdP’s keys and trust configuration, not
> a per-client key exchange.*
>
>
>
> It is not completely accurate against the latest of the Drafts that exist
> and are evaluated already by the working group, see
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-identity-chaining/. In
> this Draft – Figure 1, from my understanding, the authorization grant JWTis
> issued by a trusted 3rd party AS (domain A) to be used at the AS (domain
> B). This is highlighted in section 2.1 / (C):
>
>
>
> *This requires a trust relationship between the authorization servers in
> trust domain A and trust domain B (sometimes called federation, such a
> trust relationship typically manifests in the exchange of key material
> where domain B's authorization server trusts the public key(s) of domain A
> to sign JWT authorization grants).*
>
>
> What would be the differences with the proposal here (introduction of a
> new grant type excluded)?
>
>
>
>    - I fully noted the:
>
>
>
> If the request is valid and authorized, the AS issues an access token per
> Section 5.1 of [RFC6749]. A refresh token MUST NOT be issued for this grant
> type.
>
>
>
>                 But could this be worked out within
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-identity-chaining/
> directly?
>
>
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
> *Jean-François “Jeff” Lombardo* | Amazon Web Services
>
>
>
> Architecte Principal de Solutions, Spécialiste de Sécurité
> Principal Solution Architect, Security Specialist
> Montréal, Canada
>
> *Commentaires à propos de notre échange? **Exprimez-vous **ici*
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/feedback.aws.amazon.com/?ea=jeffsec&fn=Jean*20Francois&ln=Lombardo__;JQ!!Pe07N362zA!0k9CkAV8Djpw_8EfIAKrbhP3TQrJr0oMnznlUgBJ3V3NoEk6hihx7dNHnQuejn6SSH2CP8Iow3G-tTzppHeg$>
> *.*
>
>
>
> *Thoughts on our interaction? Provide feedback **here*
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/feedback.aws.amazon.com/?ea=jeffsec&fn=Jean*20Francois&ln=Lombardo__;JQ!!Pe07N362zA!0k9CkAV8Djpw_8EfIAKrbhP3TQrJr0oMnznlUgBJ3V3NoEk6hihx7dNHnQuejn6SSH2CP8Iow3G-tTzppHeg$>
> *.*
>
>
>
> *From:* Jorge Turrado Ferrero <[email protected]>
> *Sent:* October 3, 2025 8:28 AM
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Cc:* [email protected]; [email protected]
> *Subject:* [EXT] [OAUTH-WG] New Draft: OAuth 2.0 External Assertion
> Authorization Grant
>
>
>
> *CAUTION*: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know
> the content is safe.
>
>
>
> *AVERTISSEMENT*: Ce courrier électronique provient d’un expéditeur
> externe. Ne cliquez sur aucun lien et n’ouvrez aucune pièce jointe si vous
> ne pouvez pas confirmer l’identité de l’expéditeur et si vous n’êtes pas
> certain que le contenu ne présente aucun risque.
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> We submitted
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-external-assertion-oauth-grant/
>
> This draft introduces a new OAuth 2.0 authorization grant type,
> "urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:external-assertion", that allows a client
> to obtain an access token from an Authorization Server by presenting a
> verifiable assertion issued by a trusted external Identity Provider.
>
> The motivation is to support zero trust architectures in cloud and server
> farm environments, where workloads and applications often authenticate with
> different identity providers but must access shared resources under a
> common  authorization server. Today, each deployment implements its own
> bespoke token exchange or local credential system, leading to fragmented
> approaches and operational overhead.
>
> The External Assertion Grant standardizes this flow so that:
>
> - Workloads can present a JWT assertion from a trusted external IdP.
> - Authorization Servers can validate and transform it into a  short-lived
> access token.
> - Access can be consistently enforced without long-lived secrets or
> provider-specific hacks.
>
> A key difference from the existing
> "urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:jwt-bearer" grant is the trust model:
> - In the jwt-bearer grant, the client presents a JWT it has signed, and
> the Authorization Server validates it using a public key that has been
> pre-registered or exchanged.
> - In the external-assertion grant, the JWT is issued by an external entity
> the AS already trusts (for example, a federated IdP). The AS validates it
> using that IdP’s keys and trust configuration, not a per-client key
> exchange.
>
> This enables practical zero trust at scale: every request is authenticated
> and authorized based on verifiable, short-lived identity tokens, even when
> crossing trust boundaries between providers.
>
> Feedback from the WG is very welcome on scope, validation requirements,
> and applicability to real-world multi-cloud and server farm scenarios.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to