< draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token-14.txt		draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token-15.txt >
	OAuth Working Group M. Jones		OAuth Working Group M. Jones
	Internet-Draft Microsoft		Internet-Draft Microsoft
	Intended status: Standards Track J. Bradley		Intended status: Standards Track J. Bradley
	Expires: July 2, 2014 Ping Identity		Expires: July 24, 2014 Ping Identity
	N. Sakimura		N. Sakimura
	NRI		NRI
	December 29, 2013		January 20, 2014
	JSON Web Token (JWT)		JSON Web Token (JWT)
	draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token-14		draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token-15
	Abstract		Abstract
	JSON Web Token (JWT) is a compact URL-safe means of representing		JSON Web Token (JWT) is a compact URL-safe means of representing
	claims to be transferred between two parties. The claims in a JWT		claims to be transferred between two parties. The claims in a JWT
	are encoded as a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) object that is		are encoded as a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) object that is
	used as the payload of a JSON Web Signature (JWS) structure or as the		used as the payload of a JSON Web Signature (JWS) structure or as the
	plaintext of a JSON Web Encryption (JWE) structure, enabling the		plaintext of a JSON Web Encryption (JWE) structure, enabling the
	claims to be digitally signed or MACed and/or encrypted.		claims to be digitally signed or MACed and/or encrypted.
	skipping to change at page 1, line 41 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 41 ¶
	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 July 2, 2014.		This Internet-Draft will expire on July 24, 2014.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2014 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 4, line 10 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 10 ¶
	Appendix C. Relationship of JWTs to Simple Web Tokens (SWTs) . . 25		Appendix C. Relationship of JWTs to Simple Web Tokens (SWTs) . . 25
	Appendix D. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25		Appendix D. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
	Appendix E. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25		Appendix E. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	JSON Web Token (JWT) is a compact claims representation format		JSON Web Token (JWT) is a compact claims representation format
	intended for space constrained environments such as HTTP		intended for space constrained environments such as HTTP
	Authorization headers and URI query parameters. JWTs encode claims		Authorization headers and URI query parameters. JWTs encode claims
	to be transmitted as a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) [RFC4627]		to be transmitted as a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)
	object that is used as the payload of a JSON Web Signature (JWS)		[I-D.ietf-json-rfc4627bis] object that is used as the payload of a
	[JWS] structure or as the plaintext of a JSON Web Encryption (JWE)		JSON Web Signature (JWS) [JWS] structure or as the plaintext of a
	[JWE] structure, enabling the claims to be digitally signed or MACed		JSON Web Encryption (JWE) [JWE] structure, enabling the claims to be
	and/or encrypted. JWTs are always represented using the JWS Compact		digitally signed or MACed and/or encrypted. JWTs are always
	Serialization or the JWE Compact Serialization.		represented using the JWS Compact Serialization or the JWE Compact
			Serialization.
	The suggested pronunciation of JWT is the same as the English word		The suggested pronunciation of JWT is the same as the English word
	"jot".		"jot".
	1.1. Notational Conventions		1.1. Notational Conventions
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",		The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
	"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this		"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
	document are to be interpreted as described in Key words for use in		document are to be interpreted as described in Key words for use in
	RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels [RFC2119]. If these words are		RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels [RFC2119]. If these words are
	skipping to change at page 6, line 9 ¶		skipping to change at page 6, line 9 ¶
	IntDate A JSON numeric value representing the number of seconds from		IntDate A JSON numeric value representing the number of seconds from
	1970-01-01T0:0:0Z UTC until the specified UTC date/time. See RFC		1970-01-01T0:0:0Z UTC until the specified UTC date/time. See RFC
	3339 [RFC3339] for details regarding date/times in general and UTC		3339 [RFC3339] for details regarding date/times in general and UTC
	in particular.		in particular.
	3. JSON Web Token (JWT) Overview		3. JSON Web Token (JWT) Overview
	JWTs represent a set of claims as a JSON object that is encoded in a		JWTs represent a set of claims as a JSON object that is encoded in a
	JWS and/or JWE structure. This JSON object is the JWT Claims Set. As		JWS and/or JWE structure. This JSON object is the JWT Claims Set. As
	per RFC 4627 [RFC4627] Section 2.2, the JSON object consists of zero		per Section 4 of [I-D.ietf-json-rfc4627bis], the JSON object consists
	or more name/value pairs (or members), where the names are strings		of zero or more name/value pairs (or members), where the names are
	and the values are arbitrary JSON values. These members are the		strings and the values are arbitrary JSON values. These members are
	claims represented by the JWT.		the claims represented by the JWT.
	The member names within the JWT Claims Set are referred to as Claim		The member names within the JWT Claims Set are referred to as Claim
	Names. The corresponding values are referred to as Claim Values.		Names. The corresponding values are referred to as Claim Values.
	The contents of the JWT Header describe the cryptographic operations		The contents of the JWT Header describe the cryptographic operations
	applied to the JWT Claims Set. If the JWT Header is a JWS Header, the		applied to the JWT Claims Set. If the JWT Header is a JWS Header, the
	JWT is represented as a JWS, and the claims are digitally signed or		JWT is represented as a JWS, and the claims are digitally signed or
	MACed, with the JWT Claims Set being the JWS Payload. If the JWT		MACed, with the JWT Claims Set being the JWS Payload. If the JWT
	Header is a JWE Header, the JWT is represented as a JWE, and the		Header is a JWE Header, the JWT is represented as a JWE, and the
	claims are encrypted, with the JWT Claims Set being the input		claims are encrypted, with the JWT Claims Set being the input
	skipping to change at page 13, line 42 ¶		skipping to change at page 13, line 42 ¶
	1. The JWT MUST contain at least one period ('.') character.		1. The JWT MUST contain at least one period ('.') character.
	2. Let the Encoded JWT Header be the portion of the JWT before the		2. Let the Encoded JWT Header be the portion of the JWT before the
	first period ('.') character.		first period ('.') character.
	3. The Encoded JWT Header MUST be successfully base64url decoded		3. The Encoded JWT Header MUST be successfully base64url decoded
	following the restriction given in this specification that no		following the restriction given in this specification that no
	padding characters have been used.		padding characters have been used.
	4. The resulting JWT Header MUST be completely valid JSON syntax		4. The resulting JWT Header MUST be completely valid JSON syntax
	conforming to RFC 4627 [RFC4627].		conforming to [I-D.ietf-json-rfc4627bis].
	5. The resulting JWT Header MUST be validated to only include		5. The resulting JWT Header MUST be validated to only include
	parameters and values whose syntax and semantics are both		parameters and values whose syntax and semantics are both
	understood and supported or that are specified as being ignored		understood and supported or that are specified as being ignored
	when not understood.		when not understood.
	6. Determine whether the JWT is a JWS or a JWE using any of the		6. Determine whether the JWT is a JWS or a JWE using any of the
	methods described in Section 9 of [JWE].		methods described in Section 9 of [JWE].
	7. Depending upon whether the JWT is a JWS or JWE, there are two		7. Depending upon whether the JWT is a JWS or JWE, there are two
	skipping to change at page 14, line 24 ¶		skipping to change at page 14, line 24 ¶
	JWE Plaintext.		JWE Plaintext.
	8. If the JWT Header contains a "cty" (content type) value of		8. If the JWT Header contains a "cty" (content type) value of
	"JWT", then the Message is a JWT that was the subject of nested		"JWT", then the Message is a JWT that was the subject of nested
	signing or encryption operations. In this case, return to Step		signing or encryption operations. In this case, return to Step
	1, using the Message as the JWT.		1, using the Message as the JWT.
	9. Otherwise, let the JWT Claims Set be the Message.		9. Otherwise, let the JWT Claims Set be the Message.
	10. The JWT Claims Set MUST be completely valid JSON syntax		10. The JWT Claims Set MUST be completely valid JSON syntax
	conforming to RFC 4627 [RFC4627].		conforming to [I-D.ietf-json-rfc4627bis].
	7.1. String Comparison Rules		7.1. String Comparison Rules
	Processing a JWT inevitably requires comparing known strings to		Processing a JWT inevitably requires comparing known strings to
	values in JSON objects. For example, in checking what the algorithm		values in JSON objects. For example, in checking what the algorithm
	is, the Unicode string encoding "alg" will be checked against the		is, the Unicode string encoding "alg" will be checked against the
	member names in the JWT Header to see if there is a matching Header		member names in the JWT Header to see if there is a matching Header
	Parameter Name.		Parameter Name.
	Comparisons between JSON strings and other Unicode strings MUST be		Comparisons between JSON strings and other Unicode strings MUST be
	skipping to change at page 20, line 13 ¶		skipping to change at page 20, line 13 ¶
	specification.		specification.
	12. References		12. References
	12.1. Normative References		12.1. Normative References
	[ECMAScript]		[ECMAScript]
	Ecma International, "ECMAScript Language Specification,		Ecma International, "ECMAScript Language Specification,
	5.1 Edition", ECMA 262, June 2011.		5.1 Edition", ECMA 262, June 2011.
			[I-D.ietf-json-rfc4627bis]
			Bray, T., "The JSON Data Interchange Format",
			draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-10 (work in progress),
			December 2013.
	[IANA.MediaTypes]		[IANA.MediaTypes]
	Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), "MIME Media		Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), "MIME Media
	Types", 2005.		Types", 2005.
	[JWA] Jones, M., "JSON Web Algorithms (JWA)",		[JWA] Jones, M., "JSON Web Algorithms (JWA)",
	draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms (work in progress),		draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms (work in progress),
	December 2013.		January 2014.
	[JWE] Jones, M., Rescorla, E., and J. Hildebrand, "JSON Web		[JWE] Jones, M., Rescorla, E., and J. Hildebrand, "JSON Web
	Encryption (JWE)", draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption		Encryption (JWE)", draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption
	(work in progress), December 2013.		(work in progress), January 2014.
	[JWK] Jones, M., "JSON Web Key (JWK)",		[JWK] Jones, M., "JSON Web Key (JWK)",
	draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key (work in progress),		draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key (work in progress),
	December 2013.		January 2014.
	[JWS] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web		[JWS] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web
	Signature (JWS)", draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature (work		Signature (JWS)", draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature (work
	in progress), December 2013.		in progress), January 2014.
	[RFC2046] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail		[RFC2046] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
	Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046,		Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046,
	November 1996.		November 1996.
	[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, March 1997.		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
	[RFC3339] Klyne, G., Ed. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the		[RFC3339] Klyne, G., Ed. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the
	Internet: Timestamps", RFC 3339, July 2002.		Internet: Timestamps", RFC 3339, July 2002.
	[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform		[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
	Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,		Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
	RFC 3986, January 2005.		RFC 3986, January 2005.
	[RFC4627] Crockford, D., "The application/json Media Type for
	JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)", RFC 4627, July 2006.
	[RFC4648] Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data		[RFC4648] Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data
	Encodings", RFC 4648, October 2006.		Encodings", RFC 4648, October 2006.
	[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,
	May 2008.		May 2008.
	[RFC6755] Campbell, B. and H. Tschofenig, "An IETF URN Sub-Namespace		[RFC6755] Campbell, B. and H. Tschofenig, "An IETF URN Sub-Namespace
	for OAuth", RFC 6755, October 2012.		for OAuth", RFC 6755, October 2012.
	skipping to change at page 24, line 40 ¶		skipping to change at page 24, line 40 ¶
	than supported by JWTs. However, the cost of this flexibility and		than supported by JWTs. However, the cost of this flexibility and
	expressiveness is both size and complexity. SAML's use of XML		expressiveness is both size and complexity. SAML's use of XML
	[W3C.CR-xml11-20021015] and XML DSIG [RFC3275] contributes to the		[W3C.CR-xml11-20021015] and XML DSIG [RFC3275] contributes to the
	size of SAML assertions; its use of XML and especially XML		size of SAML assertions; its use of XML and especially XML
	Canonicalization [W3C.REC-xml-c14n-20010315] contributes to their		Canonicalization [W3C.REC-xml-c14n-20010315] contributes to their
	complexity.		complexity.
	JWTs are intended to provide a simple security token format that is		JWTs are intended to provide a simple security token format that is
	small enough to fit into HTTP headers and query arguments in URIs.		small enough to fit into HTTP headers and query arguments in URIs.
	It does this by supporting a much simpler token model than SAML and		It does this by supporting a much simpler token model than SAML and
	using the JSON [RFC4627] object encoding syntax. It also supports		using the JSON [I-D.ietf-json-rfc4627bis] object encoding syntax. It
	securing tokens using Message Authentication Codes (MACs) and digital		also supports securing tokens using Message Authentication Codes
	signatures using a smaller (and less flexible) format than XML DSIG.		(MACs) and digital signatures using a smaller (and less flexible)
			format than XML DSIG.
	Therefore, while JWTs can do some of the things SAML assertions do,		Therefore, while JWTs can do some of the things SAML assertions do,
	JWTs are not intended as a full replacement for SAML assertions, but		JWTs are not intended as a full replacement for SAML assertions, but
	rather as a token format to be used when ease of implementation or		rather as a token format to be used when ease of implementation or
	compactness are considerations.		compactness are considerations.
	SAML Assertions are always statements made by an entity about a		SAML Assertions are always statements made by an entity about a
	subject. JWTs are often used in the same manner, with the entity		subject. JWTs are often used in the same manner, with the entity
	making the statements being represented by the "iss" (issuer) claim,		making the statements being represented by the "iss" (issuer) claim,
	and the subject being represented by the "sub" (subject) claim.		and the subject being represented by the "sub" (subject) claim.
	skipping to change at page 25, line 47 ¶		skipping to change at page 26, line 4 ¶
	John Panzer, Emmanuel Raviart, David Recordon, Eric Rescorla, Jim		John Panzer, Emmanuel Raviart, David Recordon, Eric Rescorla, Jim
	Schaad, Paul Tarjan, Hannes Tschofenig, and Sean Turner.		Schaad, Paul Tarjan, Hannes Tschofenig, and Sean Turner.
	Hannes Tschofenig and Derek Atkins chaired the OAuth working group		Hannes Tschofenig and Derek Atkins chaired the OAuth working group
	and Sean Turner and Stephen Farrell served as Security area directors		and Sean Turner and Stephen Farrell served as Security area directors
	during the creation of this specification.		during the creation of this specification.
	Appendix E. Document History		Appendix E. 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 ]]
			-15
			o Replaced references to RFC 4627 with draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis.
	-14		-14
	o Referenced the JWE section on Distinguishing between JWS and JWE		o Referenced the JWE section on Distinguishing between JWS and JWE
	Objects.		Objects.
	-13		-13
	o Added Claim Description registry field.		o Added Claim Description registry field.
	o Used Header Parameter Description registry field.		o Used Header Parameter Description registry field.
	o Removed the phrases "JWA signing algorithms" and "JWA encryption		o Removed the phrases "JWA signing algorithms" and "JWA encryption
End of changes. 18 change blocks.
	27 lines changed or deleted		35 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/