< draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-05.txt		draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-06.txt >
	ACE Working Group M. Jones		ACE Working Group M. Jones
	Internet-Draft Microsoft		Internet-Draft Microsoft
	Intended status: Standards Track E. Wahlstroem		Intended status: Standards Track E. Wahlstroem
	Expires: December 7, 2017		Expires: December 31, 2017
	S. Erdtman		S. Erdtman
	Spotify AB		Spotify AB
	H. Tschofenig		H. Tschofenig
	ARM Ltd.		ARM Ltd.
	June 5, 2017		June 29, 2017
	CBOR Web Token (CWT)		CBOR Web Token (CWT)
	draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-05		draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-06
	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. The claims in a CWT are encoded in		transferred between two parties. The claims in a CWT are encoded in
	the Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and CBOR Object		the Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and CBOR Object
	Signing and Encryption (COSE) is used for added application layer		Signing and Encryption (COSE) is used for added application layer
	security protection. A claim is a piece of information asserted		security protection. A claim is a piece of information asserted
	about a subject and is represented as a name/value pair consisting of		about a subject and is represented as a name/value pair consisting of
	a claim name and a claim value. CWT is derived from JSON Web Token		a claim name and a claim value. CWT is derived from JSON Web Token
	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 December 7, 2017.		This Internet-Draft will expire on December 31, 2017.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2017 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
	skipping to change at page 2, line 21 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 21 ¶
	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
	described in the Simplified BSD License.		described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	1.1. CBOR Related Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1.1. CBOR Related Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	3. Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		3. Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	3.1. Claim Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		3.1. Registered Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	3.1.1. iss (Issuer) Claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		3.1.1. iss (Issuer) Claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	3.1.2. sub (Subject) Claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		3.1.2. sub (Subject) Claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	3.1.3. aud (Audience) Claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		3.1.3. aud (Audience) Claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	3.1.4. exp (Expiration Time) Claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		3.1.4. exp (Expiration Time) Claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	3.1.5. nbf (Not Before) Claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		3.1.5. nbf (Not Before) Claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	3.1.6. iat (Issued At) Claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		3.1.6. iat (Issued At) Claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	3.1.7. cti (CWT ID) Claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		3.1.7. cti (CWT ID) Claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	4. Summary of the values, value types, and encoded claim keys . 6		4. Summary of the claim names, keys, and value types . . . . . . 6
	5. CBOR Tags and Claim Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		5. CBOR Tags and Claim Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	6. CWT CBOR Tag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		6. CWT CBOR Tag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	7. Creating and Validating CWTs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		7. Creating and Validating CWTs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	7.1. Creating a CWT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		7.1. Creating a CWT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	7.2. Validating a CWT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		7.2. Validating a CWT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	9.1. CBOR Web Token (CWT) Claims Registry . . . . . . . . . . 9		9.1. CBOR Web Token (CWT) Claims Registry . . . . . . . . . . 10
	9.1.1. Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		9.1.1. Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	9.1.2. Initial Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		9.1.2. Initial Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	9.2. Media Type Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		9.2. Media Type Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	9.2.1. Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		9.2.1. Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	9.3. CoAP Content-Formats Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		9.3. CoAP Content-Formats Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	9.3.1. Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		9.3.1. Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	9.4. CBOR Tag registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		9.4. CBOR Tag registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	9.4.1. Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		9.4.1. Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	Appendix A. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		Appendix A. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	A.1. Example CWT Claims Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		A.1. Example CWT Claims Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	A.2. Example keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		A.2. Example keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	A.2.1. 128-bit Symmetric Key as Hex Encoded String . . . . . 16		A.2.1. 128-bit Symmetric Key as Hex Encoded String . . . . . 16
	A.2.2. 256-bit Symmetric Key as Hex Encoded String . . . . . 16		A.2.2. 256-bit Symmetric Key as Hex Encoded String . . . . . 16
	A.2.3. ECDSA P-256 256-bit COSE Key . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		A.2.3. ECDSA P-256 256-bit COSE Key . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	A.3. Example Signed CWT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		A.3. Example Signed CWT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	A.4. Example MACed CWT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18		A.4. Example MACed CWT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	A.5. Example Encrypted CWT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18		A.5. Example Encrypted CWT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
	A.6. Example Nested CWT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19		A.6. Example Nested CWT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
	A.7. Example MACed CWT with a floating-point value . . . . . . 20		A.7. Example MACed CWT with a floating-point value . . . . . . 21
	Appendix B. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21		Appendix B. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
	Appendix C. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21		Appendix C. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
	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 Signature		deployments, among other applications. JWT uses JSON Web Signature
	(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.
	The use of JSON for encoding information is popular for Web and		The use of JSON for encoding information is popular for Web and
	native applications, but it is considered inefficient for some		native applications, but it is considered inefficient for some
	skipping to change at page 3, line 43 ¶		skipping to change at page 3, line 43 ¶
	derived from JWT. To protect the claims contained in CWTs, the CBOR		derived from JWT. To protect the claims contained in CWTs, the CBOR
	Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) [I-D.ietf-cose-msg]		Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) [I-D.ietf-cose-msg]
	specification is used.		specification is used.
	The suggested pronunciation of CWT is the same as the English word		The suggested pronunciation of CWT is the same as the English word
	"cot".		"cot".
	1.1. CBOR Related Terminology		1.1. CBOR Related Terminology
	In JSON, maps are called objects and only have one kind of map key: a		In JSON, maps are called objects and only have one kind of map key: a
	string. In COSE, we use strings, negative integers, and unsigned		string. CBOR uses strings, negative integers, and unsigned integers
	integers as map keys. The integers are used for compactness of		as map keys. The integers are used for compactness of encoding and
	encoding and easy comparison. The inclusion of strings allows for an		easy comparison. The inclusion of strings allows for an additional
	additional range of short encoded values to be used as well.		range of short encoded values to be used.
	2. Terminology		2. Terminology
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",		The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
	"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and		"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
	"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in		"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
	"Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels" [RFC2119].		"Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels" [RFC2119].
	This document reuses terminology from JWT [RFC7519] and COSE		This document reuses terminology from JWT [RFC7519] and COSE
	[I-D.ietf-cose-msg].		[I-D.ietf-cose-msg].
	StringOrURI:		StringOrURI
	The "StringOrURI" term has the same meaning, syntax, and		The "StringOrURI" term has the same meaning, syntax, and
	processing rules as the "StringOrUri" term defined in Section 2 of		processing rules as the "StringOrUri" term defined in Section 2 of
	JWT [RFC7519], except that it uses a CBOR text string instead of a		JWT [RFC7519], except that it uses a CBOR text string instead of a
	JSON string value.		JSON string value.
	NumericDate:		NumericDate
	The "NumericDate" term has the same meaning, syntax, and		The "NumericDate" 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 the CBOR numeric date representation		JWT [RFC7519], except that the CBOR numeric date representation
	(from Section 2.4.1 of [RFC7049]) is used. The encoding is		(from Section 2.4.1 of [RFC7049]) is used. The encoding is
	modified so that the leading tag (6.1 or 0xC1) MUST be omitted.		modified so that the leading tag 1 (epoch-based date/time) MUST be
			omitted.
	CBOR encoded claim key:		Claim Name
	The key used to identify a claim value.		The human-readable name used to identify a claim.
			Claim Key
			The CBOR map key used to identify a claim.
			Claim Value
			The CBOR map value representing the value of the claim.
	CWT Claims Set		CWT Claims Set
	A CBOR map that contains the claims conveyed by the CWT.		The 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 Claim Keys are represented
	represented using integers or text strings. Section 4 summarizes all		using integers or text strings. Section 4 summarizes all keys used
	keys used to identify the claims defined in this document.		to identify the claims defined in this document.
	3.1. Claim Names		3.1. Registered Claims
	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
	The "iss" (issuer) claim has the same meaning, syntax, and processing		The "iss" (issuer) claim has the same meaning, syntax, and processing
	rules as the "iss" claim defined in Section 4.1.1 of JWT [RFC7519],		rules as the "iss" claim defined in Section 4.1.1 of JWT [RFC7519],
	except that the format MUST be a StringOrURI. The CBOR encoded claim		except that the value is of type StringOrURI. The Claim Key 1 is
	key 1 MUST be used to identify this claim.		used to identify this claim.
	3.1.2. sub (Subject) Claim		3.1.2. sub (Subject) Claim
	The "sub" (subject) claim has the same meaning, syntax, and		The "sub" (subject) claim has the same meaning, syntax, and
	processing rules as the "sub" claim defined in Section 4.1.2 of JWT		processing rules as the "sub" claim defined in Section 4.1.2 of JWT
	[RFC7519], except that the format MUST be a StringOrURI. The CBOR		[RFC7519], except that the value is of type StringOrURI. The Claim
	encoded claim key 2 MUST be used to identify this claim.		Key 2 is used to identify this claim.
	3.1.3. aud (Audience) Claim		3.1.3. aud (Audience) Claim
	The "aud" (audience) claim has the same meaning, syntax, and		The "aud" (audience) claim has the same meaning, syntax, and
	processing rules as the "aud" claim defined in Section 4.1.3 of JWT		processing rules as the "aud" claim defined in Section 4.1.3 of JWT
	[RFC7519], except that the format MUST be a StringOrURI. The CBOR		[RFC7519], except that the value is of type StringOrURI. The Claim
	encoded claim key 3 MUST be used to identify this claim.		Key 3 is used to identify this claim.
	3.1.4. exp (Expiration Time) Claim		3.1.4. exp (Expiration Time) Claim
	The "exp" (expiration time) claim has the same meaning, syntax, and		The "exp" (expiration time) claim has the same meaning, syntax, and
	processing rules as the "exp" claim defined in Section 4.1.4 of JWT		processing rules as the "exp" claim defined in Section 4.1.4 of JWT
	[RFC7519], except that the format MUST be a NumericDate. The CBOR		[RFC7519], except that the value is of type NumericDate. The Claim
	encoded claim key 4 MUST be used to identify this claim.		Key 4 is used to identify this claim.
	3.1.5. nbf (Not Before) Claim		3.1.5. nbf (Not Before) Claim
	The "nbf" (not before) claim has the same meaning, syntax, and		The "nbf" (not before) claim has the same meaning, syntax, and
	processing rules as the "nbf" claim defined in Section 4.1.5 of JWT		processing rules as the "nbf" claim defined in Section 4.1.5 of JWT
	[RFC7519], except that the format MUST be a NumericDate. The CBOR		[RFC7519], except that the value is of type NumericDate. The Claim
	encoded claim key 5 MUST be used to identify this claim.		Key 5 is used to identify this claim.
	3.1.6. iat (Issued At) Claim		3.1.6. iat (Issued At) Claim
	The "iat" (issued at) claim has the same meaning, syntax, and		The "iat" (issued at) claim has the same meaning, syntax, and
	processing rules as the "iat" claim defined in Section 4.1.6 of JWT		processing rules as the "iat" claim defined in Section 4.1.6 of JWT
	[RFC7519], except that the format MUST be a NumericDate. The CBOR
	encoded claim key 6 MUST be used to identify this claim.		[RFC7519], except that the value is of type NumericDate. The Claim
			Key 6 is used to identify this claim.
	3.1.7. cti (CWT ID) Claim		3.1.7. cti (CWT ID) Claim
	The "cti" (CWT ID) claim has the same meaning, syntax, and processing		The "cti" (CWT ID) claim has the same meaning, syntax, and processing
	rules as the "jti" claim defined in Section 4.1.7 of JWT [RFC7519],		rules as the "jti" claim defined in Section 4.1.7 of JWT [RFC7519],
	except that the format MUST be binary string. The CBOR encoded claim		except that the value is of type binary string. The Claim Key 7 is
	key 7 MUST be used to identify this claim.		used to identify this claim.
	4. Summary of the values, value types, and encoded claim keys		4. Summary of the claim names, keys, and value types
	/---------+-----+----------------------------------\		/---------+-----+----------------------------------\
	| Name | Key | Value type |		| Name | Key | Value type |
	|---------+-----+----------------------------------|		|---------+-----+----------------------------------|
	| iss | 1 | text string |		| iss | 1 | text string |
	| sub | 2 | text string |		| sub | 2 | text string |
	| aud | 3 | text string |		| aud | 3 | text string |
	| exp | 4 | integer or floating-point number |		| exp | 4 | integer or floating-point number |
	| nbf | 5 | integer or floating-point number |		| nbf | 5 | integer or floating-point number |
	| iat | 6 | integer or floating-point number |		| iat | 6 | integer or floating-point number |
	| cti | 7 | binary string |		| cti | 7 | binary string |
	\---------+-----+----------------------------------/		\---------+-----+----------------------------------/
	Figure 1: Summary of the values, value types, and encoded claim keys		Figure 1: Summary of the claim names, keys, and value types
	5. CBOR Tags and Claim Values		5. CBOR Tags and Claim Values
	The claim values defined in this specification MUST NOT be prefixed		The claim values defined in this specification MUST NOT be prefixed
	with any CBOR tag. For instance, while CBOR tag 6.1 (seconds-since-		with any CBOR tag. For instance, while CBOR tag 1 (epoch-based date/
	the-epoch) could logically be prefixed to values of the "exp", "nbf",		time) could logically be prefixed to values of the "exp", "nbf", and
	and "iat" claims, this is unnecessary, since the representation of		"iat" claims, this is unnecessary, since the representation of the
	the claim values is already specified by the claim definitions.		claim values is already specified by the claim definitions. Tagging
	Tagging claim values would only take up extra space without adding		claim values would only take up extra space without adding
	information. However, this does not prohibit future claim		information. However, this does not prohibit future claim
	definitions from requiring the use of CBOR tags for those specific		definitions from requiring the use of CBOR tags for those specific
	claims.		claims.
	6. CWT CBOR Tag		6. CWT CBOR Tag
	How to determine that a CBOR data structure is a CWT is application-		How to determine that a CBOR data structure is a CWT is application-
	dependent. In some cases, this information is known from the		dependent. In some cases, this information is known from the
	application context, such as from the position of the CWT in a data		application context, such as from the position of the CWT in a data
	structure at which the value must be a CWT. One method of indicating		structure at which the value must be a CWT. One method of indicating
	skipping to change at page 9, line 16 ¶		skipping to change at page 9, line 21 ¶
	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.
	6. If the Message begins with a COSE CBOR tag, then the Message is a		6. If the Message begins with a COSE CBOR tag, then the Message is a
	CWT that was the subject of nested signing, MACing, or encryption		CWT that was the subject of nested signing, MACing, or encryption
	operations. In this case, return to Step 1, using the Message as		operations. In this case, return to Step 1, using the Message as
	the CWT.		the CWT.
	7. Verify that the Message is a valid CBOR object; let the CWT		7. Verify that the Message is a valid CBOR map; let the CWT Claims
	Claims Set be this CBOR object.		Set be this CBOR map.
	8. Security Considerations		8. Security Considerations
	The security of the CWT relies upon on the protections offered by		The security of the CWT relies upon on the protections offered by
	COSE. Unless the claims in a CWT are protected, an adversary can		COSE. Unless the claims in a CWT are protected, an adversary can
	modify, add, or remove claims.		modify, add, or remove claims.
	Since the claims conveyed in a CWT may be used to make authorization		Since the claims conveyed in a CWT may be used to make authorization
	decisions, it is not only important to protect the CWT in transit but		decisions, it is not only important to protect the CWT in transit but
	also to ensure that the recipient can authenticate the party that		also to ensure that the recipient can authenticate the party that
	skipping to change at page 10, line 47 ¶		skipping to change at page 11, line 8 ¶
	Claim Description:		Claim Description:
	Brief description of the claim (e.g., "Issuer").		Brief description of the claim (e.g., "Issuer").
	JWT Claim Name:		JWT Claim Name:
	Claim Name of the equivalent JWT claim, as registered in		Claim Name of the equivalent JWT claim, as registered in
	[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:		Claim Key:
	Integer values between -256 and 255 and strings of length 1 are		CBOR map key for the claim. Integer values between -256 and 255
	designated as Standards Track Document required. Integer values		and strings of length 1 are designated as Standards Track Document
	from -65536 to 65535 and strings of length 2 are designated as		required. Integer values from -65536 to 65535 and strings of
	Specification Required. Integer values of greater than 65535 and		length 2 are designated as Specification Required. Integer values
	strings of length greater than 2 are designated as expert review.		of greater than 65535 and strings of length greater than 2 are
	Integer values less than -65536 are marked as private use.		designated as expert review. Integer values less than -65536 are
			marked as private use.
	CBOR Major Type:		Claim Value Type(s):
	CBOR major type and optional tag for the claim.		CBOR types that can be used for the claim value.
	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
	included but is not required.		included but is not required.
	9.1.2. Initial Registry Contents		9.1.2. Initial Registry Contents
	o Claim Name: N/A		o Claim Name: (RESERVED)
	o Claim Description: This registration reserves the key value 0.		o Claim Description: This registration reserves the key value 0.
	o JWT Claim Name: N/A		o JWT Claim Name: N/A
	o CBOR Key Value: 0		o Claim Key: 0
	o CBOR Major Type: N/A		o Claim Value Type(s): N/A
	o Change Controller: IESG		o Change Controller: IESG
	o Specification Document(s): [[ this specification ]]		o Specification Document(s): [[ this specification ]]
	o Claim Name: "iss"		o Claim Name: "iss"
	o Claim Description: Issuer		o Claim Description: Issuer
	o JWT Claim Name: "iss"		o JWT Claim Name: "iss"
	o CBOR Key Value: 1		o Claim Key: 1
	o CBOR Major Type: 3		o Claim Value Type(s): text string
	o Change Controller: IESG		o Change Controller: IESG
	o Specification Document(s): Section 3.1.1 of [[ this specification		o Specification Document(s): Section 3.1.1 of [[ this specification
	]]		]]
	o Claim Name: "sub"		o Claim Name: "sub"
	o Claim Description: Subject		o Claim Description: Subject
	o JWT Claim Name: "sub"		o JWT Claim Name: "sub"
	o CBOR Key Value: 2		o Claim Key: 2
	o CBOR Major Type: 3		o Claim Value Type(s): text string
	o Change Controller: IESG		o Change Controller: IESG
	o Specification Document(s): Section 3.1.2 of [[ this specification		o Specification Document(s): Section 3.1.2 of [[ this specification
	]]		]]
	o Claim Name: "aud"		o Claim Name: "aud"
	o Claim Description: Audience		o Claim Description: Audience
	o JWT Claim Name: "aud"		o JWT Claim Name: "aud"
	o CBOR Key Value: 3		o Claim Key: 3
	o CBOR Major Type: 3		o Claim Value Type(s): text string
	o Change Controller: IESG		o Change Controller: IESG
	o Specification Document(s): Section 3.1.3 of [[ this specification		o Specification Document(s): Section 3.1.3 of [[ this specification
	]]		]]
	o Claim Name: "exp"		o Claim Name: "exp"
	o Claim Description: Expiration Time		o Claim Description: Expiration Time
	o JWT Claim Name: "exp"		o JWT Claim Name: "exp"
	o CBOR Key Value: 4		o Claim Key: 4
	o CBOR Major Type: 0, 1, or 7 with subtypes 25, 26, or 27		o Claim Value Type(s): integer or floating-point number
	o Change Controller: IESG		o Change Controller: IESG
	o Specification Document(s): Section 3.1.4 of [[ this specification		o Specification Document(s): Section 3.1.4 of [[ this specification
	]]		]]
	o Claim Name: "nbf"		o Claim Name: "nbf"
	o Claim Description: Not Before		o Claim Description: Not Before
	o JWT Claim Name: "nbf"		o JWT Claim Name: "nbf"
	o CBOR Key Value: 5		o Claim Key: 5
	o CBOR Major Type: 0, 1, or 7 with subtypes 25, 26, or 27		o Claim Value Type(s): integer or floating-point number
	o Change Controller: IESG		o Change Controller: IESG
	o Specification Document(s): Section 3.1.5 of [[ this specification		o Specification Document(s): Section 3.1.5 of [[ this specification
	]]		]]
	o Claim Name: "iat"		o Claim Name: "iat"
	o Claim Description: Issued At		o Claim Description: Issued At
	o JWT Claim Name: "iat"		o JWT Claim Name: "iat"
	o CBOR Key Value: 6		o Claim Key: 6
	o CBOR Major Type: 0, 1, or 7 with subtypes 25, 26, or 27		o Claim Value Type(s): integer or floating-point number
	o Change Controller: IESG		o Change Controller: IESG
	o Specification Document(s): Section 3.1.6 of [[ this specification		o Specification Document(s): Section 3.1.6 of [[ this specification
	]]		]]
	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 Claim Key: 7
	o CBOR Major Type: 2		o Claim Value Type(s): binary string
	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
	]]		]]
	9.2. Media Type Registration		9.2. Media Type Registration
	This section registers the "application/cwt" media type in the "Media		This section registers the "application/cwt" media type in the "Media
	Types" registry [IANA.MediaTypes] in the manner described in RFC 6838		Types" registry [IANA.MediaTypes] in the manner described in RFC 6838
	[RFC6838], which can be used to indicate that the content is a CWT.		[RFC6838], which can be used to indicate that the content is a CWT.
	skipping to change at page 15, line 12 ¶		skipping to change at page 15, line 20 ¶
	(JWT)", RFC 7519, DOI 10.17487/RFC7519, May 2015,		(JWT)", RFC 7519, DOI 10.17487/RFC7519, May 2015,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7519>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7519>.
	10.2. Informative References		10.2. Informative References
	[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>.
	[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", 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		[RFC6838] Freed, N., Klensin, J., and T. Hansen, "Media Type
	Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13,		Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13,
	RFC 6838, DOI 10.17487/RFC6838, January 2013,		RFC 6838, DOI 10.17487/RFC6838, January 2013,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6838>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6838>.
	[RFC7515] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web		[RFC7515] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web
	Signature (JWS)", RFC 7515, DOI 10.17487/RFC7515, May		Signature (JWS)", RFC 7515, DOI 10.17487/RFC7515, May
	skipping to change at page 21, line 32 ¶		skipping to change at page 22, line 32 ¶
	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. It also		authors of which also include Nat Sakimura and John Bradley. It also
	incorporates suggestions made by many people, notably Carsten		incorporates suggestions made by many people, notably Carsten
	Bormann, Jim Schaad, Ludwig Seitz, and Goeran Selander.		Bormann, Jim Schaad, 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 ]]
			-06
			o Addressed review comments by Carsten Bormann and Jim Schaad. All
			changes were editorial in nature.
	-05		-05
	o Addressed working group last call comments with the following		o Addressed working group last call comments with the following
	changes:		changes:
	o Say that CWT is derived from JWT, rather than CWT is a profile of		o Say that CWT is derived from JWT, rather than CWT is a profile of
	JWT.		JWT.
	o Used CBOR type names in descriptions, rather than major/minor type		o Used CBOR type names in descriptions, rather than major/minor type
	numbers.		numbers.
End of changes. 45 change blocks.
	86 lines changed or deleted		100 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/