< draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-01.txt		draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-02.txt >
	ACE Working Group E. Wahlstroem		ACE Working Group M. Jones
	Internet-Draft		Internet-Draft Microsoft
	Intended status: Informational M. Jones		Intended status: Informational E. Wahlstroem
	Expires: January 8, 2017 Microsoft		Expires: July 17, 2017
	H. Tschofenig
	ARM Ltd.
	S. Erdtman		S. Erdtman
	Spotify AB		Spotify AB
	July 7, 2016		H. Tschofenig
			ARM Ltd.
			January 13, 2017
	CBOR Web Token (CWT)		CBOR Web Token (CWT)
	draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-01		draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-02
	Abstract		Abstract
	CBOR Web Token (CWT) is a compact means of representing claims to be		CBOR Web Token (CWT) is a compact means of representing claims to be
	transferred between two parties. CWT is a profile of the JSON Web		transferred between two parties. CWT is a profile of the JSON Web
	Token (JWT) that is optimized for constrained devices. The claims in		Token (JWT) that is optimized for constrained devices. The claims in
	a CWT are encoded in the Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)		a CWT are encoded in the Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)
	and CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) is used for added		and CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) is used for added
	application layer security protection. A claim is a piece of		application layer security protection. A claim is a piece of
	information asserted about a subject and is represented as a name/		information asserted about a subject and is represented as a name/
	skipping to change at page 1, line 42 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 42 ¶
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on January 8, 2017.		This Internet-Draft will expire on July 17, 2017.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect		carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
	to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must		to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of		include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
	skipping to change at page 2, line 38 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 38 ¶
	4. Summary of the values, CBOR major types and encoded claim		4. Summary of the values, CBOR major types and encoded claim
	keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	5. Creating and Validating CWTs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		5. Creating and Validating CWTs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	5.1. Creating a CWT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		5.1. Creating a CWT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	5.2. Validating a CWT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		5.2. Validating a CWT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	7.1. CBOR Web Token (CWT) Claims Registry . . . . . . . . . . 8		7.1. CBOR Web Token (CWT) Claims Registry . . . . . . . . . . 8
	7.1.1. Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		7.1.1. Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	7.1.2. Initial Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		7.1.2. Initial Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	7.2. CoAP Content-Format Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		7.2. Media Type Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	7.2.1. Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		7.2.1. Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
			7.3. CoAP Content-Formats Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
			7.3.1. Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	Appendix A. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		Appendix A. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	A.1. CWT with "aud" and symmetric key . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		A.1. CWT with "aud" and symmetric key . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	A.2. CWT with "aud" and EC key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		A.2. CWT with "aud" and EC key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	A.3. Full CWT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		A.3. Full CWT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	Appendix B. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18		Appendix B. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
	Appendix C. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19		Appendix C. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	The JSON Web Token (JWT) [RFC7519] is a standardized security token		The JSON Web Token (JWT) [RFC7519] is a standardized security token
	format that has found use in OAuth 2.0 and OpenID Connect		format that has found use in OAuth 2.0 and OpenID Connect
	deployments, among other applications. JWT uses JSON Web Signatures		deployments, among other applications. JWT uses JSON Web Signatures
	(JWS) [RFC7515] and JSON Web Encryption (JWE) [RFC7516] to secure the		(JWS) [RFC7515] and JSON Web Encryption (JWE) [RFC7516] to secure the
	contents of the JWT, which is a set of claims represented in JSON		contents of the JWT, which is a set of claims represented in JSON
	[RFC7519]. The use of JSON for encoding information is popular for		[RFC7519]. The use of JSON for encoding information is popular for
	Web and native applications, but it is considered inefficient for		Web and native applications, but it is considered inefficient for
	skipping to change at page 4, line 7 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 7 ¶
	Type6NumericDate:		Type6NumericDate:
	The "Type6NumericDate" term has the same meaning, syntax, and		The "Type6NumericDate" term has the same meaning, syntax, and
	processing rules as the "NumericDate" term defined in Section 2 of		processing rules as the "NumericDate" term defined in Section 2 of
	JWT [RFC7519], except that Type6NumericDate uses CBOR major type		JWT [RFC7519], except that Type6NumericDate uses CBOR major type
	6, with tag value 1, instead of a numeric JSON value.		6, with tag value 1, instead of a numeric JSON value.
	CBOR encoded claim key:		CBOR encoded claim key:
	The key used to identify a claim value.		The key used to identify a claim value.
			CWT Claims Set
			A CBOR map that contains the claims conveyed by the CWT.
	3. Claims		3. Claims
	The set of claims that a CWT must contain to be considered valid is		The set of claims that a CWT must contain to be considered valid is
	context dependent and is outside the scope of this specification.		context dependent and is outside the scope of this specification.
	Specific applications of CWTs will require implementations to		Specific applications of CWTs will require implementations to
	understand and process some claims in particular ways. However, in		understand and process some claims in particular ways. However, in
	the absence of such requirements, all claims that are not understood		the absence of such requirements, all claims that are not understood
	by implementations MUST be ignored.		by implementations MUST be ignored.
	To keep CWTs as small as possible, the CBOR encoded claim keys are		To keep CWTs as small as possible, the CBOR encoded claim keys are
	represented using CBOR major type 0. Section 4 summaries all keys		represented using CBOR major type 0. Section 4 summarizes all keys
	used to identity the claims defined in this document.		used to identify the claims defined in this document.
	3.1. Claim Names		3.1. Claim Names
	None of the claims defined below are intended to be mandatory to use		None of the claims defined below are intended to be mandatory to use
	or implement. They rather provide a starting point for a set of		or implement. They rather provide a starting point for a set of
	useful, interoperable claims. Applications using CWTs should define		useful, interoperable claims. Applications using CWTs should define
	which specific claims they use and when they are required or		which specific claims they use and when they are required or
	optional.		optional.
	3.1.1. iss (Issuer) Claim		3.1.1. iss (Issuer) Claim
	skipping to change at page 6, line 19 ¶		skipping to change at page 6, line 19 ¶
	To create a CWT, the following steps are performed. The order of the		To create a CWT, the following steps are performed. The order of the
	steps is not significant in cases where there are no dependencies		steps is not significant in cases where there are no dependencies
	between the inputs and outputs of the steps.		between the inputs and outputs of the steps.
	1. Create a CWT Claims Set containing the desired claims.		1. Create a CWT Claims Set containing the desired claims.
	2. Let the Message be the binary representation of the CWT Claims		2. Let the Message be the binary representation of the CWT Claims
	Set.		Set.
	3. Create a COSE Header containing the desired set of Header		3. Create a COSE Header containing the desired set of Header
	Parameters. The CWT Header MUST be a valid according to the		Parameters. The COSE Header MUST be valid according to the
	[I-D.ietf-cose-msg] specification.		[I-D.ietf-cose-msg] specification.
	4. Depending upon whether the CWT is signed, MACed or encrypted,		4. Depending upon whether the CWT is signed, MACed or encrypted,
	there are three cases:		there are three cases:
	* If the CWT is signed, create a COSE_Sign/COSE_Sign1 object		* If the CWT is signed, create a COSE_Sign/COSE_Sign1 object
	using the Message as the COSE_Sign/COSE_Sign1 Payload; all		using the Message as the COSE_Sign/COSE_Sign1 Payload; all
	steps specified in [I-D.ietf-cose-msg] for creating a		steps specified in [I-D.ietf-cose-msg] for creating a
	COSE_Sign/COSE_Sign1 object MUST be followed.		COSE_Sign/COSE_Sign1 object MUST be followed.
	skipping to change at page 6, line 44 ¶		skipping to change at page 6, line 44 ¶
	* Else, if the CWT is a COSE_Encrypt/COSE_Encrypt0 object,		* Else, if the CWT is a COSE_Encrypt/COSE_Encrypt0 object,
	create a COSE_Encrypt/COSE_Encrypt0 using the Message as the		create a COSE_Encrypt/COSE_Encrypt0 using the Message as the
	plaintext for the COSE_Encrypt/COSE_Encrypt0 object; all steps		plaintext for the COSE_Encrypt/COSE_Encrypt0 object; all steps
	specified in [I-D.ietf-cose-msg] for creating a COSE_Encrypt/		specified in [I-D.ietf-cose-msg] for creating a COSE_Encrypt/
	COSE_Encrypt0 object MUST be followed.		COSE_Encrypt0 object MUST be followed.
	5. If a nested signing, MACing or encryption operation will be		5. If a nested signing, MACing or encryption operation will be
	performed, let the Message be the COSE_Sign/COSE_Sign1, COSE_Mac/		performed, let the Message be the COSE_Sign/COSE_Sign1, COSE_Mac/
	COSE_Mac0 or COSE_Encrypt/COSE_Encrypt0, and return to Step 3,		COSE_Mac0 or COSE_Encrypt/COSE_Encrypt0, and return to Step 3,
	using "content type" header value of "CWT" in the new COSE Header		using a "content type" header value corresponding to the media
	created in that step.		type "application/cwt" in the new COSE Header created in that
			step.
	Note: If integrity (signing/MACing) and confidentiality		Note: If integrity (signing/MACing) and confidentiality
	(encryption) protection are needed, it is recommended to use an		(encryption) protection are needed, it is recommended to use an
	authenticated encryption algorithm to save space and processing.		authenticated encryption algorithm to save space and processing.
	5.2. Validating a CWT		5.2. Validating a CWT
	When validating a CWT, the following steps are performed. The order		When validating a CWT, the following steps are performed. The order
	of the steps is not significant in cases where there are no		of the steps is not significant in cases where there are no
	dependencies between the inputs and outputs of the steps. If any of		dependencies between the inputs and outputs of the steps. If any of
	the listed steps fail, then the CWT MUST be rejected -- that is,		the listed steps fail, then the CWT MUST be rejected -- that is,
	treated by the application as an invalid input.		treated by the application as an invalid input.
	1. Verify that the CWT is a valid CBOR object.		1. Verify that the CWT is a valid CBOR object.
	2. Verify that the resulting COSE Header includes only parameters		2. Verify that the resulting COSE Header includes only parameters
	and values whose syntax and semantics are both understood and		and values whose syntax and semantics are both understood and
	supported or that are specified as being ignored when not		supported or that are specified as being ignored when not
	understood.		understood.
	3. Use the CBOR tag to determine the type the CWT, COSE_Sign/		3. Use the CBOR tag to determine the type of the CWT, COSE_Sign/
	COSE_Sign1, COSE_Mac/COSE_Mac0 or COSE_Encrypt/COSE_Encrypt0.		COSE_Sign1, COSE_Mac/COSE_Mac0, or COSE_Encrypt/COSE_Encrypt0.
	4. Depending upon whether the CWT is a COSE_Sign/COSE_Sign1,		4. Depending upon whether the CWT is a COSE_Sign/COSE_Sign1,
	COSE_Mac/COSE_Mac0 or COSE_Encrypt/COSE_Encrypt0, there are three		COSE_Mac/COSE_Mac0 or COSE_Encrypt/COSE_Encrypt0, there are three
	cases:		cases:
	* If the CWT is a COSE_Sign/COSE_Sign1, follow the steps		* If the CWT is a COSE_Sign/COSE_Sign1, follow the steps
	specified in [I-D.ietf-cose-msg] Section 4 (Signing Objects)		specified in [I-D.ietf-cose-msg] Section 4 (Signing Objects)
	for validating a COSE_Sign/COSE_Sign1 object. Let the Message		for validating a COSE_Sign/COSE_Sign1 object. Let the Message
	be the COSE_Sign/COSE_Sign1 payload.		be the COSE_Sign/COSE_Sign1 payload.
	skipping to change at page 7, line 43 ¶		skipping to change at page 7, line 43 ¶
	specified in [I-D.ietf-cose-msg] Section 6 (MAC Objects) for		specified in [I-D.ietf-cose-msg] Section 6 (MAC Objects) for
	validating a COSE_Mac/COSE_Mac0 object. Let the Message be		validating a COSE_Mac/COSE_Mac0 object. Let the Message be
	the COSE_Mac/COSE_Mac0 payload.		the COSE_Mac/COSE_Mac0 payload.
	* Else, if the CWT is a COSE_Encrypt/COSE_Encrypt0 object,		* Else, if the CWT is a COSE_Encrypt/COSE_Encrypt0 object,
	follow the steps specified in [I-D.ietf-cose-msg] Section 5		follow the steps specified in [I-D.ietf-cose-msg] Section 5
	(Encryption Objects) for validating a COSE_Encrypt/		(Encryption Objects) for validating a COSE_Encrypt/
	COSE_Encrypt0 object. Let the Message be the resulting		COSE_Encrypt0 object. Let the Message be the resulting
	plaintext.		plaintext.
	5. If the JOSE Header contains a "content type" value of "CWT", then		5. If the COSE Header contains a "content type" header value
	the Message is a CWT that was the subject of nested signing or		corresponding to the media type "application/cwt", then the
			Message is a CWT that was the subject of nested signing or
	encryption operations. In this case, return to Step 1, using the		encryption operations. In this case, return to Step 1, using the
	Message as the CWT.		Message as the CWT.
	6. Verify that the Message is a valid CBOR object; let the CWT		6. Verify that the Message is a valid CBOR object; let the CWT
	Claims Set be this CBOR object.		Claims Set be this CBOR object.
	6. Security Considerations		6. Security Considerations
	The security of the CWT is dependent on the protection offered by		The security of the CWT is dependent on the protection offered by
	COSE. Without protecting the claims contained in a CWT an adversary		COSE. Without protecting the claims contained in a CWT an adversary
	skipping to change at page 9, line 10 ¶		skipping to change at page 9, line 10 ¶
	[IANA.JWT.Claims]. CWT claims should normally have a		[IANA.JWT.Claims]. CWT claims should normally have a
	corresponding JWT claim. If a corresponding JWT claim would not		corresponding JWT claim. If a corresponding JWT claim would not
	make sense, the Designated Experts can choose to accept		make sense, the Designated Experts can choose to accept
	registrations for which the JWT Claim Name is listed as "N/A".		registrations for which the JWT Claim Name is listed as "N/A".
	CBOR Key Value:		CBOR Key Value:
	Key value for the claim. The key value MUST be an integer in the		Key value for the claim. The key value MUST be an integer in the
	range of 1 to 65536.		range of 1 to 65536.
	CBOR Major Type:		CBOR Major Type:
	CBOR Major type and optional tag for the claim.		CBOR major type and optional tag for the claim.
	Change Controller:		Change Controller:
	For Standards Track RFCs, list the "IESG". For others, give the		For Standards Track RFCs, list the "IESG". For others, give the
	name of the responsible party. Other details (e.g., postal		name of the responsible party. Other details (e.g., postal
	address, email address, home page URI) may also be included.		address, email address, home page URI) may also be included.
	Specification Document(s):		Specification Document(s):
	Reference to the document or documents that specify the parameter,		Reference to the document or documents that specify the parameter,
	preferably including URIs that can be used to retrieve copies of		preferably including URIs that can be used to retrieve copies of
	the documents. An indication of the relevant sections may also be		the documents. An indication of the relevant sections may also be
	skipping to change at page 10, line 39 ¶		skipping to change at page 10, line 39 ¶
	o Claim Name: "cti"		o Claim Name: "cti"
	o Claim Description: CWT ID		o Claim Description: CWT ID
	o JWT Claim Name: "jti"		o JWT Claim Name: "jti"
	o CBOR Key Value: 7		o CBOR Key Value: 7
	o CBOR Major Type: 2		o CBOR Major Type: 2
	o Change Controller: IESG		o Change Controller: IESG
	o Specification Document(s): Section 3.1.7 of [[ this specification		o Specification Document(s): Section 3.1.7 of [[ this specification
	]]		]]
	7.2. CoAP Content-Format Registration		7.2. Media Type Registration
	This section registers the "application/cwt" CoAP Content-Format ID		This section registers the "application/cwt" media type [RFC2046] in
	in the "CoRE Parameters" sub-registry "CoAP Content-Format" in the		the "Media Types" registry [IANA.MediaTypes] in the manner described
	manner described in [RFC7252].		in RFC 6838 [RFC6838], which can be used to indicate that the content
			is a CWT.
	7.2.1. Registry Contents		7.2.1. Registry Contents
			o Type name: application
			o Subtype name: cwt
			o Required parameters: N/A
			o Optional parameters: N/A
			o Encoding considerations: binary
			o Security considerations: See the Security Considerations section
			of [[ this specification ]]
			o Interoperability considerations: N/A
			o Published specification: [[ this specification ]]
			o Applications that use this media type: IoT applications sending
			security tokens over HTTP(S) and other transports.
			o Fragment identifier considerations: N/A
			o Additional information:
			Magic number(s): N/A
			File extension(s): N/A
			Macintosh file type code(s): N/A
			o Person & email address to contact for further information:
			IESG, iesg@ietf.org
			o Intended usage: COMMON
			o Restrictions on usage: none
			o Author: Michael B. Jones, mbj@microsoft.com
			o Change controller: IESG
			o Provisional registration? No
			7.3. CoAP Content-Formats Registration
			This section registers the CoAP Content-Format ID for the
			"application/cwt" media type in the "CoAP Content-Formats" registry
			[IANA.CoAP.Content-Formats] established by [RFC7252].
			7.3.1. Registry Contents
	o Media Type: application/cwt		o Media Type: application/cwt
	o Encoding: -		o Encoding: -
	o Id: TBD (maybe 61)		o Id: TBD (maybe 61)
	o Reference: [[ this specification ]]		o Reference: [[ this specification ]]
	8. References		8. References
	8.1. Normative References		8.1. Normative References
	[I-D.ietf-cose-msg]		[I-D.ietf-cose-msg]
	Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)",		Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)",
	draft-ietf-cose-msg-14 (work in progress), June 2016.		draft-ietf-cose-msg-24 (work in progress), November 2016.
			[IANA.CoAP.Content-Formats]
			IANA, "CoAP Content-Formats",
			<http://www.iana.org/assignments/core-parameters/
			core-parameters.xhtml#content-formats>.
	[IANA.JWT.Claims]		[IANA.JWT.Claims]
	IANA, "JSON Web Token Claims",		IANA, "JSON Web Token Claims",
	<http://www.iana.org/assignments/jwt>.		<http://www.iana.org/assignments/jwt>.
			[IANA.MediaTypes]
			IANA, "Media Types",
			<http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types>.
			[RFC2046] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
			Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046,
			DOI 10.17487/RFC2046, November 1996,
			<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2046>.
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,		DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
	[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an		[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
	IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,		IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,		DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
			[RFC6838] Freed, N., Klensin, J., and T. Hansen, "Media Type
			Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13,
			RFC 6838, DOI 10.17487/RFC6838, January 2013,
			<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6838>.
	[RFC7049] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object		[RFC7049] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
	Representation (CBOR)", RFC 7049, DOI 10.17487/RFC7049,		Representation (CBOR)", RFC 7049, DOI 10.17487/RFC7049,
	October 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7049>.		October 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7049>.
	[RFC7159] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data		[RFC7159] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
	Interchange Format", RFC 7159, DOI 10.17487/RFC7159, March		Interchange Format", RFC 7159, DOI 10.17487/RFC7159, March
	2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7159>.		2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7159>.
	[RFC7252] Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained		[RFC7252] Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
	Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,		Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,
	skipping to change at page 19, line 9 ¶		skipping to change at page 20, line 9 ¶
	This specification is based on JSON Web Token (JWT) [RFC7519], the		This specification is based on JSON Web Token (JWT) [RFC7519], the
	authors of which also include Nat Sakimura and John Bradley. A straw		authors of which also include Nat Sakimura and John Bradley. A straw
	man proposal of CWT was written in the draft "Authorization for the		man proposal of CWT was written in the draft "Authorization for the
	Internet of Things using OAuth 2.0" [I-D.seitz-ace-oauth-authz] with		Internet of Things using OAuth 2.0" [I-D.seitz-ace-oauth-authz] with
	the help of Ludwig Seitz and Goeran Selander.		the help of Ludwig Seitz and Goeran Selander.
	Appendix C. Document History		Appendix C. Document History
	[[ to be removed by the RFC Editor before publication as an RFC ]]		[[ to be removed by the RFC Editor before publication as an RFC ]]
			-02
			o Added IANA registration for the application/cwt media type.
			o Clarified the nested CWT language.
			o Corrected nits identified by Ludwig Seitz.
	-01		-01
	o Added IANA registration for CWT Claims.		o Added IANA registration for CWT Claims.
	o Added IANA registration for the application/cwt CoAP content-		o Added IANA registration for the application/cwt CoAP content-
	format type.		format type.
	o Added Samuel Erdtman as an editor.		o Added Samuel Erdtman as an editor.
	o Changed Erik's e-mail address.		o Changed Erik's e-mail address.
	-00		-00
	o Created the initial working group version based on draft-		o Created the initial working group version based on draft-
	wahlstroem-ace-cbor-web-token-00.		wahlstroem-ace-cbor-web-token-00.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Erik Wahlstroem
	Sweden
	Email: erik@wahlstromstekniska.se
	Michael B. Jones		Michael B. Jones
	Microsoft		Microsoft
	Email: mbj@microsoft.com		Email: mbj@microsoft.com
	URI: http://self-issued.info/		URI: http://self-issued.info/
	Hannes Tschofenig		Erik Wahlstroem
	ARM Ltd.		Sweden
	Hall in Tirol 6060
	Austria
	Email: Hannes.Tschofenig@arm.com		Email: erik@wahlstromstekniska.se
	Samuel Erdtman		Samuel Erdtman
	Spotify AB		Spotify AB
	Birger Jarlsgatan 61, 4tr		Birger Jarlsgatan 61, 4tr
	Stockholm 113 56		Stockholm 113 56
	Sweden		Sweden
	Phone: +46702691499		Phone: +46702691499
	Email: erdtman@spotify.com		Email: erdtman@spotify.com
			Hannes Tschofenig
			ARM Ltd.
			Hall in Tirol 6060
			Austria
			Email: Hannes.Tschofenig@arm.com
End of changes. 26 change blocks.
	44 lines changed or deleted		104 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/