idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token-23.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (June 20, 2014) is 3592 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Unused Reference: 'RFC4648' is defined on line 937, but no explicit reference was found in the text -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ECMAScript' ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 6755 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 7159 (Obsoleted by RFC 8259) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 OAuth Working Group M. Jones 3 Internet-Draft Microsoft 4 Intended status: Standards Track J. Bradley 5 Expires: December 22, 2014 Ping Identity 6 N. Sakimura 7 NRI 8 June 20, 2014 10 JSON Web Token (JWT) 11 draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token-23 13 Abstract 15 JSON Web Token (JWT) is a compact URL-safe means of representing 16 claims to be transferred between two parties. The claims in a JWT 17 are encoded as a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) object that is 18 used as the payload of a JSON Web Signature (JWS) structure or as the 19 plaintext of a JSON Web Encryption (JWE) structure, enabling the 20 claims to be digitally signed or MACed and/or encrypted. 22 The suggested pronunciation of JWT is the same as the English word 23 "jot". 25 Status of this Memo 27 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 28 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 30 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 31 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 32 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 33 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 35 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 36 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 37 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 38 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 40 This Internet-Draft will expire on December 22, 2014. 42 Copyright Notice 44 Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 45 document authors. All rights reserved. 47 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 48 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 49 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 50 publication of this document. Please review these documents 51 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 52 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 53 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 54 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 55 described in the Simplified BSD License. 57 Table of Contents 59 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 1.1. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 3. JSON Web Token (JWT) Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 63 3.1. Example JWT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 64 4. JWT Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 65 4.1. Registered Claim Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 66 4.1.1. "iss" (Issuer) Claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 67 4.1.2. "sub" (Subject) Claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 68 4.1.3. "aud" (Audience) Claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 69 4.1.4. "exp" (Expiration Time) Claim . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 70 4.1.5. "nbf" (Not Before) Claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 71 4.1.6. "iat" (Issued At) Claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 72 4.1.7. "jti" (JWT ID) Claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 73 4.2. Public Claim Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 74 4.3. Private Claim Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 75 5. JOSE Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 76 5.1. "typ" (Type) Header Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 77 5.2. "cty" (Content Type) Header Parameter . . . . . . . . . . 11 78 5.3. Replicating Claims as Header Parameters . . . . . . . . . 11 79 6. Plaintext JWTs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 80 6.1. Example Plaintext JWT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 81 7. Rules for Creating and Validating a JWT . . . . . . . . . . . 13 82 7.1. String Comparison Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 83 8. Implementation Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 84 9. URI for Declaring that Content is a JWT . . . . . . . . . . . 15 85 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 86 10.1. JSON Web Token Claims Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 87 10.1.1. Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 88 10.1.2. Initial Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 89 10.2. Sub-Namespace Registration of 90 urn:ietf:params:oauth:token-type:jwt . . . . . . . . . . . 18 91 10.2.1. Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 92 10.3. Media Type Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 93 10.3.1. Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 94 10.4. Header Parameter Names Registration . . . . . . . . . . . 19 95 10.4.1. Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 97 11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 98 11.1. Trust Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 99 11.2. Signing and Encryption Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 100 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 101 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 102 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 103 Appendix A. JWT Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 104 A.1. Example Encrypted JWT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 105 A.2. Example Nested JWT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 106 Appendix B. Relationship of JWTs to SAML Assertions . . . . . . . 25 107 Appendix C. Relationship of JWTs to Simple Web Tokens (SWTs) . . 26 108 Appendix D. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 109 Appendix E. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 110 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 112 1. Introduction 114 JSON Web Token (JWT) is a compact claims representation format 115 intended for space constrained environments such as HTTP 116 Authorization headers and URI query parameters. JWTs encode claims 117 to be transmitted as a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) [RFC7159] 118 object that is used as the payload of a JSON Web Signature (JWS) 119 [JWS] structure or as the plaintext of a JSON Web Encryption (JWE) 120 [JWE] structure, enabling the claims to be digitally signed or MACed 121 and/or encrypted. JWTs are always represented using the JWS Compact 122 Serialization or the JWE Compact Serialization. 124 The suggested pronunciation of JWT is the same as the English word 125 "jot". 127 1.1. Notational Conventions 129 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 130 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 131 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in Key 132 words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels [RFC2119]. If 133 these words are used without being spelled in uppercase then they are 134 to be interpreted with their normal natural language meanings. 136 2. Terminology 138 These terms defined by the JSON Web Signature (JWS) [JWS] 139 specification are incorporated into this specification: "JSON Web 140 Signature (JWS)", "Base64url Encoding", "Header Parameter", "JOSE 141 Header", "JWS Compact Serialization", "JWS Payload", "JWS Signature", 142 and "Plaintext JWS". 144 These terms defined by the JSON Web Encryption (JWE) [JWE] 145 specification are incorporated into this specification: "JSON Web 146 Encryption (JWE)", "Content Encryption Key (CEK)", "JWE Compact 147 Serialization", "JWE Encrypted Key", "JWE Initialization Vector", 148 "JWE Plaintext". 150 These terms are defined by this specification: 152 JSON Web Token (JWT) 153 A string representing a set of claims as a JSON object that is 154 encoded in a JWS or JWE, enabling the claims to be digitally 155 signed or MACed and/or encrypted. 157 JWT Claims Set 158 A JSON object that contains the Claims conveyed by the JWT. 160 Claim 161 A piece of information asserted about a subject. A Claim is 162 represented as a name/value pair consisting of a Claim Name and a 163 Claim Value. 165 Claim Name 166 The name portion of a Claim representation. A Claim Name is 167 always a string. 169 Claim Value 170 The value portion of a Claim representation. A Claim Value can be 171 any JSON value. 173 Encoded JOSE Header 174 Base64url encoding of the JOSE Header. 176 Nested JWT 177 A JWT in which nested signing and/or encryption are employed. In 178 nested JWTs, a JWT is used as the payload or plaintext value of an 179 enclosing JWS or JWE structure, respectively. 181 Plaintext JWT 182 A JWT whose Claims are not integrity protected or encrypted. 184 Collision-Resistant Name 185 A name in a namespace that enables names to be allocated in a 186 manner such that they are highly unlikely to collide with other 187 names. Examples of collision-resistant namespaces include: Domain 188 Names, Object Identifiers (OIDs) as defined in the ITU-T X.660 and 189 X.670 Recommendation series, and Universally Unique IDentifiers 190 (UUIDs) [RFC4122]. When using an administratively delegated 191 namespace, the definer of a name needs to take reasonable 192 precautions to ensure they are in control of the portion of the 193 namespace they use to define the name. 195 StringOrURI 196 A JSON string value, with the additional requirement that while 197 arbitrary string values MAY be used, any value containing a ":" 198 character MUST be a URI [RFC3986]. StringOrURI values are 199 compared as case-sensitive strings with no transformations or 200 canonicalizations applied. 202 IntDate 203 A JSON numeric value representing the number of seconds from 1970- 204 01-01T0:0:0Z UTC until the specified UTC date/time. See RFC 3339 205 [RFC3339] for details regarding date/times in general and UTC in 206 particular. 208 3. JSON Web Token (JWT) Overview 210 JWTs represent a set of claims as a JSON object that is encoded in a 211 JWS and/or JWE structure. This JSON object is the JWT Claims Set. As 212 per Section 4 of [RFC7159], the JSON object consists of zero or more 213 name/value pairs (or members), where the names are strings and the 214 values are arbitrary JSON values. These members are the claims 215 represented by the JWT. 217 The member names within the JWT Claims Set are referred to as Claim 218 Names. The corresponding values are referred to as Claim Values. 220 The contents of the JOSE Header describe the cryptographic operations 221 applied to the JWT Claims Set. If the JOSE Header is for a JWS 222 object, the JWT is represented as a JWS, and the claims are digitally 223 signed or MACed, with the JWT Claims Set being the JWS Payload. If 224 the JOSE Header is for a JWE object, the JWT is represented as a JWE, 225 and the claims are encrypted, with the JWT Claims Set being the JWE 226 Plaintext. A JWT may be enclosed in another JWE or JWS structure to 227 create a Nested JWT, enabling nested signing and encryption to be 228 performed. 230 A JWT is represented as a sequence of URL-safe parts separated by 231 period ('.') characters. Each part contains a base64url encoded 232 value. The number of parts in the JWT is dependent upon the 233 representation of the resulting JWS or JWE object using the JWS 234 Compact Serialization or the JWE Compact Serialization. 236 3.1. Example JWT 238 The following example JOSE Header declares that the encoded object is 239 a JSON Web Token (JWT) and the JWT is a JWS that is MACed using the 240 HMAC SHA-256 algorithm: 242 {"typ":"JWT", 243 "alg":"HS256"} 245 To remove potential ambiguities in the representation of the JSON 246 object above, the octet sequence for the actual UTF-8 representation 247 used in this example for the JOSE Header above is also included 248 below. (Note that ambiguities can arise due to differing platform 249 representations of line breaks (CRLF versus LF), differing spacing at 250 the beginning and ends of lines, whether the last line has a 251 terminating line break or not, and other causes. In the 252 representation used in this example, the first line has no leading or 253 trailing spaces, a CRLF line break (13, 10) occurs between the first 254 and second lines, the second line has one leading space (32) and no 255 trailing spaces, and the last line does not have a terminating line 256 break.) The octets representing the UTF-8 representation of the JOSE 257 Header in this example (using JSON array notation) are: 259 [123, 34, 116, 121, 112, 34, 58, 34, 74, 87, 84, 34, 44, 13, 10, 32, 260 34, 97, 108, 103, 34, 58, 34, 72, 83, 50, 53, 54, 34, 125] 262 Base64url encoding the octets of the UTF-8 representation of the JOSE 263 Header yields this Encoded JOSE Header value: 265 eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLA0KICJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9 267 The following is an example of a JWT Claims Set: 269 {"iss":"joe", 270 "exp":1300819380, 271 "http://example.com/is_root":true} 273 The following octet sequence, which is the UTF-8 representation used 274 in this example for the JWT Claims Set above, is the JWS Payload: 276 [123, 34, 105, 115, 115, 34, 58, 34, 106, 111, 101, 34, 44, 13, 10, 277 32, 34, 101, 120, 112, 34, 58, 49, 51, 48, 48, 56, 49, 57, 51, 56, 278 48, 44, 13, 10, 32, 34, 104, 116, 116, 112, 58, 47, 47, 101, 120, 97, 279 109, 112, 108, 101, 46, 99, 111, 109, 47, 105, 115, 95, 114, 111, 280 111, 116, 34, 58, 116, 114, 117, 101, 125] 282 Base64url encoding the JWS Payload yields this encoded JWS Payload 283 (with line breaks for display purposes only): 285 eyJpc3MiOiJqb2UiLA0KICJleHAiOjEzMDA4MTkzODAsDQogImh0dHA6Ly 286 9leGFtcGxlLmNvbS9pc19yb290Ijp0cnVlfQ 288 Computing the MAC of the encoded JOSE Header and encoded JWS Payload 289 with the HMAC SHA-256 algorithm and base64url encoding the HMAC value 290 in the manner specified in [JWS], yields this encoded JWS Signature: 292 dBjftJeZ4CVP-mB92K27uhbUJU1p1r_wW1gFWFOEjXk 294 Concatenating these encoded parts in this order with period ('.') 295 characters between the parts yields this complete JWT (with line 296 breaks for display purposes only): 298 eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLA0KICJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9 299 . 300 eyJpc3MiOiJqb2UiLA0KICJleHAiOjEzMDA4MTkzODAsDQogImh0dHA6Ly9leGFt 301 cGxlLmNvbS9pc19yb290Ijp0cnVlfQ 302 . 303 dBjftJeZ4CVP-mB92K27uhbUJU1p1r_wW1gFWFOEjXk 305 This computation is illustrated in more detail in Appendix A.1 of 306 [JWS]. See Appendix A.1 for an example of an encrypted JWT. 308 4. JWT Claims 310 The JWT Claims Set represents a JSON object whose members are the 311 claims conveyed by the JWT. The Claim Names within a JWT Claims Set 312 MUST be unique; recipients MUST either reject JWTs with duplicate 313 Claim Names or use a JSON parser that returns only the lexically last 314 duplicate member name, as specified in Section 15.12 (The JSON 315 Object) of ECMAScript 5.1 [ECMAScript]. 317 The set of claims that a JWT must contain to be considered valid is 318 context-dependent and is outside the scope of this specification. 319 Specific applications of JWTs will require implementations to 320 understand and process some claims in particular ways. However, in 321 the absence of such requirements, all claims that are not understood 322 by implementations MUST be ignored. 324 There are three classes of JWT Claim Names: Registered Claim Names, 325 Public Claim Names, and Private Claim Names. 327 4.1. Registered Claim Names 329 The following Claim Names are registered in the IANA JSON Web Token 330 Claims registry defined in Section 10.1. None of the claims defined 331 below are intended to be mandatory to use or implement in all cases, 332 but rather, provide a starting point for a set of useful, 333 interoperable claims. Applications using JWTs should define which 334 specific claims they use and when they are required or optional. All 335 the names are short because a core goal of JWTs is for the 336 representation to be compact. 338 4.1.1. "iss" (Issuer) Claim 340 The "iss" (issuer) claim identifies the principal that issued the 341 JWT. The processing of this claim is generally application specific. 342 The "iss" value is a case-sensitive string containing a StringOrURI 343 value. Use of this claim is OPTIONAL. 345 4.1.2. "sub" (Subject) Claim 347 The "sub" (subject) claim identifies the principal that is the 348 subject of the JWT. The Claims in a JWT are normally statements 349 about the subject. The subject value MAY be scoped to be locally 350 unique in the context of the issuer or MAY be globally unique. The 351 processing of this claim is generally application specific. The 352 "sub" value is a case-sensitive string containing a StringOrURI 353 value. Use of this claim is OPTIONAL. 355 4.1.3. "aud" (Audience) Claim 357 The "aud" (audience) claim identifies the recipients that the JWT is 358 intended for. Each principal intended to process the JWT MUST 359 identify itself with a value in the audience claim. If the principal 360 processing the claim does not identify itself with a value in the 361 "aud" claim when this claim is present, then the JWT MUST be 362 rejected. In the general case, the "aud" value is an array of case- 363 sensitive strings, each containing a StringOrURI value. In the 364 special case when the JWT has one audience, the "aud" value MAY be a 365 single case-sensitive string containing a StringOrURI value. The 366 interpretation of audience values is generally application specific. 367 Use of this claim is OPTIONAL. 369 4.1.4. "exp" (Expiration Time) Claim 371 The "exp" (expiration time) claim identifies the expiration time on 372 or after which the JWT MUST NOT be accepted for processing. The 373 processing of the "exp" claim requires that the current date/time 374 MUST be before the expiration date/time listed in the "exp" claim. 375 Implementers MAY provide for some small leeway, usually no more than 376 a few minutes, to account for clock skew. Its value MUST be a number 377 containing an IntDate value. Use of this claim is OPTIONAL. 379 4.1.5. "nbf" (Not Before) Claim 381 The "nbf" (not before) claim identifies the time before which the JWT 382 MUST NOT be accepted for processing. The processing of the "nbf" 383 claim requires that the current date/time MUST be after or equal to 384 the not-before date/time listed in the "nbf" claim. Implementers MAY 385 provide for some small leeway, usually no more than a few minutes, to 386 account for clock skew. Its value MUST be a number containing an 387 IntDate value. Use of this claim is OPTIONAL. 389 4.1.6. "iat" (Issued At) Claim 391 The "iat" (issued at) claim identifies the time at which the JWT was 392 issued. This claim can be used to determine the age of the JWT. Its 393 value MUST be a number containing an IntDate value. Use of this 394 claim is OPTIONAL. 396 4.1.7. "jti" (JWT ID) Claim 398 The "jti" (JWT ID) claim provides a unique identifier for the JWT. 399 The identifier value MUST be assigned in a manner that ensures that 400 there is a negligible probability that the same value will be 401 accidentally assigned to a different data object. The "jti" claim 402 can be used to prevent the JWT from being replayed. The "jti" value 403 is a case-sensitive string. Use of this claim is OPTIONAL. 405 4.2. Public Claim Names 407 Claim Names can be defined at will by those using JWTs. However, in 408 order to prevent collisions, any new Claim Name should either be 409 registered in the IANA JSON Web Token Claims registry defined in 410 Section 10.1 or be a Public Name: a value that contains a Collision- 411 Resistant Name. In each case, the definer of the name or value needs 412 to take reasonable precautions to make sure they are in control of 413 the part of the namespace they use to define the Claim Name. 415 4.3. Private Claim Names 417 A producer and consumer of a JWT MAY agree to use Claim Names that 418 are Private Names: names that are not Registered Claim Names 419 Section 4.1 or Public Claim Names Section 4.2. Unlike Public Claim 420 Names, Private Claim Names are subject to collision and should be 421 used with caution. 423 5. JOSE Header 425 For a JWT object, the members of the JSON object represented by the 426 JOSE Header describe the cryptographic operations applied to the JWT 427 and optionally, additional properties of the JWT. Depending upon 428 whether the JWT is a JWS or JWE, the corresponding rules for the JOSE 429 Header values apply. 431 This specification further specifies the use of the following Header 432 Parameters in both the cases where the JWT is a JWS and where it is a 433 JWE. 435 5.1. "typ" (Type) Header Parameter 437 The "typ" (type) Header Parameter defined by [JWS] and [JWE] is used 438 by JWT applications to declare the MIME Media Type [IANA.MediaTypes] 439 of this complete JWT. This is intended for use by the JWT 440 application when values that are not JWTs could also be present in an 441 application data structure that can contain a JWT object; the 442 application can use this value to disambiguate among the different 443 kinds of objects that might be present. It will typically not be 444 used by applications when it is already known that the object is a 445 JWT. This parameter has no effect upon the JWT processing. If 446 present, it is RECOMMENDED that its value be "JWT" to indicate that 447 this object is a JWT. While media type names are not case-sensitive, 448 it is RECOMMENDED that "JWT" always be spelled using uppercase 449 characters for compatibility with legacy implementations. Use of 450 this Header Parameter is OPTIONAL. 452 5.2. "cty" (Content Type) Header Parameter 454 The "cty" (content type) Header Parameter defined by [JWS] and [JWE] 455 is used by this specification to convey structural information about 456 the JWT. 458 In the normal case where nested signing or encryption operations are 459 not employed, the use of this Header Parameter is NOT RECOMMENDED. 460 In the case that nested signing or encryption is employed, this 461 Header Parameter MUST be present; in this case, the value MUST be 462 "JWT", to indicate that a Nested JWT is carried in this JWT. While 463 media type names are not case-sensitive, it is RECOMMENDED that "JWT" 464 always be spelled using uppercase characters for compatibility with 465 legacy implementations. See Appendix A.2 for an example of a Nested 466 JWT. 468 5.3. Replicating Claims as Header Parameters 470 In some applications using encrypted JWTs, it is useful to have an 471 unencrypted representation of some Claims. This might be used, for 472 instance, in application processing rules to determine whether and 473 how to process the JWT before it is decrypted. 475 This specification allows Claims present in the JWT Claims Set to be 476 replicated as Header Parameters in a JWT that is a JWE, as needed by 477 the application. If such replicated Claims are present, the 478 application receiving them SHOULD verify that their values are 479 identical, unless the application defines other specific processing 480 rules for these Claims. It is the responsibility of the application 481 to ensure that only claims that are safe to be transmitted in an 482 unencrypted manner are replicated as Header Parameter values in the 483 JWT. 485 Section 10.4.1 of this specification registers the "iss" (issuer), 486 "sub" (subject), and "aud" (audience) Header Parameter names for the 487 purpose of providing unencrypted replicas of these Claims in 488 encrypted JWTs for applications that need them. Other specifications 489 MAY similarly register other names that are registered Claim Names as 490 Header Parameter names, as needed. 492 6. Plaintext JWTs 494 To support use cases where the JWT content is secured by a means 495 other than a signature and/or encryption contained within the JWT 496 (such as a signature on a data structure containing the JWT), JWTs 497 MAY also be created without a signature or encryption. A plaintext 498 JWT is a JWS using the "alg" Header Parameter value "none" and with 499 the empty string for its JWS Signature value, as defined in JSON Web 500 Algorithms (JWA) [JWA]; it is a Plaintext JWS with the JWT Claims Set 501 as its JWS Payload. 503 6.1. Example Plaintext JWT 505 The following example JOSE Header declares that the encoded object is 506 a Plaintext JWT: 508 {"alg":"none"} 510 Base64url encoding the octets of the UTF-8 representation of the JOSE 511 Header yields this Encoded JOSE Header: 513 eyJhbGciOiJub25lIn0 515 The following is an example of a JWT Claims Set: 517 {"iss":"joe", 518 "exp":1300819380, 519 "http://example.com/is_root":true} 521 Base64url encoding the octets of the UTF-8 representation of the JWT 522 Claims Set yields this encoded JWS Payload (with line breaks for 523 display purposes only): 525 eyJpc3MiOiJqb2UiLA0KICJleHAiOjEzMDA4MTkzODAsDQogImh0dHA6Ly9leGFt 526 cGxlLmNvbS9pc19yb290Ijp0cnVlfQ 528 The encoded JWS Signature is the empty string. 530 Concatenating these encoded parts in this order with period ('.') 531 characters between the parts yields this complete JWT (with line 532 breaks for display purposes only): 534 eyJhbGciOiJub25lIn0 535 . 536 eyJpc3MiOiJqb2UiLA0KICJleHAiOjEzMDA4MTkzODAsDQogImh0dHA6Ly9leGFt 537 cGxlLmNvbS9pc19yb290Ijp0cnVlfQ 538 . 540 7. Rules for Creating and Validating a JWT 542 To create a JWT, the following steps MUST be taken. The order of the 543 steps is not significant in cases where there are no dependencies 544 between the inputs and outputs of the steps. 546 1. Create a JWT Claims Set containing the desired claims. Note that 547 white space is explicitly allowed in the representation and no 548 canonicalization need be performed before encoding. 550 2. Let the Message be the octets of the UTF-8 representation of the 551 JWT Claims Set. 553 3. Create a JOSE Header containing the desired set of Header 554 Parameters. The JWT MUST conform to either the [JWS] or [JWE] 555 specifications. Note that white space is explicitly allowed in 556 the representation and no canonicalization need be performed 557 before encoding. 559 4. Depending upon whether the JWT is a JWS or JWE, there are two 560 cases: 562 * If the JWT is a JWS, create a JWS using the Message as the JWS 563 Payload; all steps specified in [JWS] for creating a JWS MUST 564 be followed. 566 * Else, if the JWT is a JWE, create a JWE using the Message as 567 the JWE Plaintext; all steps specified in [JWE] for creating a 568 JWE MUST be followed. 570 5. If a nested signing or encryption operation will be performed, 571 let the Message be the JWS or JWE, and return to Step 3, using a 572 "cty" (content type) value of "JWT" in the new JOSE Header 573 created in that step. 575 6. Otherwise, let the resulting JWT be the JWS or JWE. 577 When validating a JWT, the following steps MUST be taken. The order 578 of the steps is not significant in cases where there are no 579 dependencies between the inputs and outputs of the steps. If any of 580 the listed steps fails then the JWT MUST be rejected for processing. 582 1. The JWT MUST contain at least one period ('.') character. 584 2. Let the Encoded JOSE Header be the portion of the JWT before the 585 first period ('.') character. 587 3. The Encoded JOSE Header MUST be successfully base64url decoded 588 following the restriction given in this specification that no 589 padding characters have been used. 591 4. The resulting JOSE Header MUST be completely valid JSON syntax 592 conforming to [RFC7159]. 594 5. The resulting JOSE Header MUST be validated to only include 595 parameters and values whose syntax and semantics are both 596 understood and supported or that are specified as being ignored 597 when not understood. 599 6. Determine whether the JWT is a JWS or a JWE using any of the 600 methods described in Section 9 of [JWE]. 602 7. Depending upon whether the JWT is a JWS or JWE, there are two 603 cases: 605 * If the JWT is a JWS, all steps specified in [JWS] for 606 validating a JWS MUST be followed. Let the Message be the 607 result of base64url decoding the JWS Payload. 609 * Else, if the JWT is a JWE, all steps specified in [JWE] for 610 validating a JWE MUST be followed. Let the Message be the 611 JWE Plaintext. 613 8. If the JOSE Header contains a "cty" (content type) value of 614 "JWT", then the Message is a JWT that was the subject of nested 615 signing or encryption operations. In this case, return to Step 616 1, using the Message as the JWT. 618 9. Otherwise, let the JWT Claims Set be the Message. 620 10. The JWT Claims Set MUST be completely valid JSON syntax 621 conforming to [RFC7159]. 623 7.1. String Comparison Rules 625 Processing a JWT inevitably requires comparing known strings to 626 values in JSON objects. For example, in checking what the algorithm 627 is, the Unicode string encoding "alg" will be checked against the 628 member names in the JOSE Header to see if there is a matching Header 629 Parameter name. 631 Comparisons between JSON strings and other Unicode strings MUST be 632 performed by comparing Unicode code points without normalization, as 633 specified in the String Comparison Rules in Section 5.3 of [JWS]. 635 8. Implementation Requirements 637 This section defines which algorithms and features of this 638 specification are mandatory to implement. Applications using this 639 specification can impose additional requirements upon implementations 640 that they use. For instance, an application might require support 641 for encrypted JWTs and Nested JWTs; another might require support for 642 signing JWTs with ECDSA using the P-256 curve and the SHA-256 hash 643 algorithm ("ES256"). 645 Of the signature and MAC algorithms specified in JSON Web Algorithms 646 (JWA) [JWA], only HMAC SHA-256 ("HS256") and "none" MUST be 647 implemented by conforming JWT implementations. It is RECOMMENDED 648 that implementations also support RSASSA-PKCS1-V1_5 with the SHA-256 649 hash algorithm ("RS256") and ECDSA using the P-256 curve and the SHA- 650 256 hash algorithm ("ES256"). Support for other algorithms and key 651 sizes is OPTIONAL. 653 Support for encrypted JWTs is OPTIONAL. If an implementation 654 provides encryption capabilities, of the encryption algorithms 655 specified in [JWA], only RSAES-PKCS1-V1_5 with 2048 bit keys 656 ("RSA1_5"), AES Key Wrap with 128 and 256 bit keys ("A128KW" and 657 "A256KW"), and the composite authenticated encryption algorithm using 658 AES CBC and HMAC SHA-2 ("A128CBC-HS256" and "A256CBC-HS512") MUST be 659 implemented by conforming implementations. It is RECOMMENDED that 660 implementations also support using ECDH-ES to agree upon a key used 661 to wrap the Content Encryption Key ("ECDH-ES+A128KW" and 662 "ECDH-ES+A256KW") and AES in Galois/Counter Mode (GCM) with 128 bit 663 and 256 bit keys ("A128GCM" and "A256GCM"). Support for other 664 algorithms and key sizes is OPTIONAL. 666 Support for Nested JWTs is OPTIONAL. 668 9. URI for Declaring that Content is a JWT 670 This specification registers the URN 671 "urn:ietf:params:oauth:token-type:jwt" for use by applications that 672 declare content types using URIs (rather than, for instance, MIME 673 Media Types) to indicate that the content referred to is a JWT. 675 10. IANA Considerations 677 10.1. JSON Web Token Claims Registry 679 This specification establishes the IANA JSON Web Token Claims 680 registry for JWT Claim Names. The registry records the Claim Name 681 and a reference to the specification that defines it. This 682 specification registers the Claim Names defined in Section 4.1. 684 Values are registered with a Specification Required [RFC5226] after a 685 two-week review period on the [TBD]@ietf.org mailing list, on the 686 advice of one or more Designated Experts. However, to allow for the 687 allocation of values prior to publication, the Designated Expert(s) 688 may approve registration once they are satisfied that such a 689 specification will be published. 691 Registration requests must be sent to the [TBD]@ietf.org mailing list 692 for review and comment, with an appropriate subject (e.g., "Request 693 for access token type: example"). [[ Note to the RFC Editor: The name 694 of the mailing list should be determined in consultation with the 695 IESG and IANA. Suggested name: jwt-reg-review. ]] 697 Within the review period, the Designated Expert(s) will either 698 approve or deny the registration request, communicating this decision 699 to the review list and IANA. Denials should include an explanation 700 and, if applicable, suggestions as to how to make the request 701 successful. Registration requests that are undetermined for a period 702 longer than 21 days can be brought to the IESG's attention (using the 703 iesg@iesg.org mailing list) for resolution. 705 Criteria that should be applied by the Designated Expert(s) includes 706 determining whether the proposed registration duplicates existing 707 functionality, determining whether it is likely to be of general 708 applicability or whether it is useful only for a single application, 709 and whether the registration makes sense. 711 IANA must only accept registry updates from the Designated Expert(s) 712 and should direct all requests for registration to the review mailing 713 list. 715 It is suggested that multiple Designated Experts be appointed who are 716 able to represent the perspectives of different applications using 717 this specification, in order to enable broadly-informed review of 718 registration decisions. In cases where a registration decision could 719 be perceived as creating a conflict of interest for a particular 720 Expert, that Expert should defer to the judgment of the other 721 Expert(s). 723 10.1.1. Registration Template 725 Claim Name: 726 The name requested (e.g., "example"). Because a core goal of this 727 specification is for the resulting representations to be compact, 728 it is RECOMMENDED that the name be short -- not to exceed 8 729 characters without a compelling reason to do so. This name is 730 case-sensitive. Names may not match other registered names in a 731 case-insensitive manner unless the Designated Expert(s) state that 732 there is a compelling reason to allow an exception in this 733 particular case. 735 Claim Description: 736 Brief description of the Claim (e.g., "Example description"). 738 Change Controller: 739 For Standards Track RFCs, state "IESG". For others, give the name 740 of the responsible party. Other details (e.g., postal address, 741 email address, home page URI) may also be included. 743 Specification Document(s): 744 Reference to the document(s) that specify the parameter, 745 preferably including URI(s) that can be used to retrieve copies of 746 the document(s). An indication of the relevant sections may also 747 be included but is not required. 749 10.1.2. Initial Registry Contents 751 o Claim Name: "iss" 752 o Claim Description: Issuer 753 o Change Controller: IESG 754 o Specification Document(s): Section 4.1.1 of [[ this document ]] 756 o Claim Name: "sub" 757 o Claim Description: Subject 758 o Change Controller: IESG 759 o Specification Document(s): Section 4.1.2 of [[ this document ]] 761 o Claim Name: "aud" 762 o Claim Description: Audience 763 o Change Controller: IESG 764 o Specification Document(s): Section 4.1.3 of [[ this document ]] 766 o Claim Name: "exp" 767 o Claim Description: Expiration Time 768 o Change Controller: IESG 769 o Specification Document(s): Section 4.1.4 of [[ this document ]] 771 o Claim Name: "nbf" 772 o Claim Description: Not Before 773 o Change Controller: IESG 774 o Specification Document(s): Section 4.1.5 of [[ this document ]] 776 o Claim Name: "iat" 777 o Claim Description: Issued At 778 o Change Controller: IESG 779 o Specification Document(s): Section 4.1.6 of [[ this document ]] 781 o Claim Name: "jti" 782 o Claim Description: JWT ID 783 o Change Controller: IESG 784 o Specification Document(s): Section 4.1.7 of [[ this document ]] 786 10.2. Sub-Namespace Registration of 787 urn:ietf:params:oauth:token-type:jwt 789 10.2.1. Registry Contents 791 This specification registers the value "token-type:jwt" in the IANA 792 urn:ietf:params:oauth registry established in An IETF URN Sub- 793 Namespace for OAuth [RFC6755], which can be used to indicate that the 794 content is a JWT. 796 o URN: urn:ietf:params:oauth:token-type:jwt 797 o Common Name: JSON Web Token (JWT) Token Type 798 o Change Controller: IESG 799 o Specification Document(s): [[this document]] 801 10.3. Media Type Registration 803 10.3.1. Registry Contents 805 This specification registers the "application/jwt" Media Type 806 [RFC2046] in the MIME Media Types registry [IANA.MediaTypes], which 807 can be used to indicate that the content is a JWT. 809 o Type Name: application 810 o Subtype Name: jwt 811 o Required Parameters: n/a 812 o Optional Parameters: n/a 813 o Encoding considerations: 8bit; JWT values are encoded as a series 814 of base64url encoded values (some of which may be the empty 815 string) separated by period ('.') characters. 817 o Security Considerations: See the Security Considerations section 818 of [[ this document ]] 819 o Interoperability Considerations: n/a 820 o Published Specification: [[ this document ]] 821 o Applications that use this media type: OpenID Connect, Mozilla 822 Persona, Salesforce, Google, numerous others 823 o Additional Information: Magic number(s): n/a, File extension(s): 824 n/a, Macintosh file type code(s): n/a 825 o Person & email address to contact for further information: Michael 826 B. Jones, mbj@microsoft.com 827 o Intended Usage: COMMON 828 o Restrictions on Usage: none 829 o Author: Michael B. Jones, mbj@microsoft.com 830 o Change Controller: IESG 832 10.4. Header Parameter Names Registration 834 This specification registers specific Claim Names defined in 835 Section 4.1 in the IANA JSON Web Signature and Encryption Header 836 Parameters registry defined in [JWS] for use by Claims replicated as 837 Header Parameters in JWE objects, per Section 5.3. 839 10.4.1. Registry Contents 841 o Header Parameter Name: "iss" 842 o Header Parameter Description: Issuer 843 o Header Parameter Usage Location(s): JWE 844 o Change Controller: IESG 845 o Specification Document(s): Section 4.1.1 of [[ this document ]] 847 o Header Parameter Name: "sub" 848 o Header Parameter Description: Subject 849 o Header Parameter Usage Location(s): JWE 850 o Change Controller: IESG 851 o Specification Document(s): Section 4.1.2 of [[ this document ]] 853 o Header Parameter Name: "aud" 854 o Header Parameter Description: Audience 855 o Header Parameter Usage Location(s): JWE 856 o Change Controller: IESG 857 o Specification Document(s): Section 4.1.3 of [[ this document ]] 859 11. Security Considerations 861 All of the security issues faced by any cryptographic application 862 must be faced by a JWT/JWS/JWE/JWK agent. Among these issues are 863 protecting the user's asymmetric private and symmetric secret keys, 864 preventing various attacks, and helping avoid mistakes such as 865 inadvertently encrypting a message to the wrong recipient. The 866 entire list of security considerations is beyond the scope of this 867 document. 869 All the security considerations in the JWS specification also apply 870 to JWT, as do the JWE security considerations when encryption is 871 employed. In particular, the JWS JSON Security Considerations and 872 Unicode Comparison Security Considerations apply equally to the JWT 873 Claims Set in the same manner that they do to the JOSE Header. 875 11.1. Trust Decisions 877 The contents of a JWT cannot be relied upon in a trust decision 878 unless its contents have been cryptographically secured and bound to 879 the context necessary for the trust decision. In particular, the 880 key(s) used to sign and/or encrypt the JWT will typically need to 881 verifiably be under the control of the party identified as the issuer 882 of the JWT. 884 11.2. Signing and Encryption Order 886 While syntactically, the signing and encryption operations for Nested 887 JWTs may be applied in any order, normally senders should sign the 888 message and then encrypt the result (thus encrypting the signature). 889 This prevents attacks in which the signature is stripped, leaving 890 just an encrypted message, as well as providing privacy for the 891 signer. Furthermore, signatures over encrypted text are not 892 considered valid in many jurisdictions. 894 Note that potential concerns about security issues related to the 895 order of signing and encryption operations are already addressed by 896 the underlying JWS and JWE specifications; in particular, because JWE 897 only supports the use of authenticated encryption algorithms, 898 cryptographic concerns about the potential need to sign after 899 encryption that apply in many contexts do not apply to this 900 specification. 902 12. References 904 12.1. Normative References 906 [ECMAScript] 907 Ecma International, "ECMAScript Language Specification, 908 5.1 Edition", ECMA 262, June 2011. 910 [IANA.MediaTypes] 911 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), "MIME Media 912 Types", 2005. 914 [JWA] Jones, M., "JSON Web Algorithms (JWA)", 915 draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms (work in progress), 916 June 2014. 918 [JWE] Jones, M. and J. Hildebrand, "JSON Web Encryption (JWE)", 919 draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption (work in progress), 920 June 2014. 922 [JWS] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web 923 Signature (JWS)", draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature (work 924 in progress), June 2014. 926 [RFC2046] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail 927 Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046, 928 November 1996. 930 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 931 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 933 [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform 934 Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, 935 RFC 3986, January 2005. 937 [RFC4648] Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data 938 Encodings", RFC 4648, October 2006. 940 [RFC6755] Campbell, B. and H. Tschofenig, "An IETF URN Sub-Namespace 941 for OAuth", RFC 6755, October 2012. 943 [RFC7159] Bray, T., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data 944 Interchange Format", RFC 7159, March 2014. 946 12.2. Informative References 948 [CanvasApp] 949 Facebook, "Canvas Applications", 2010. 951 [JSS] Bradley, J. and N. Sakimura (editor), "JSON Simple Sign", 952 September 2010. 954 [MagicSignatures] 955 Panzer (editor), J., Laurie, B., and D. Balfanz, "Magic 956 Signatures", January 2011. 958 [OASIS.saml-core-2.0-os] 959 Cantor, S., Kemp, J., Philpott, R., and E. Maler, 960 "Assertions and Protocol for the OASIS Security Assertion 961 Markup Language (SAML) V2.0", OASIS Standard saml-core- 962 2.0-os, March 2005. 964 [RFC3275] Eastlake, D., Reagle, J., and D. Solo, "(Extensible Markup 965 Language) XML-Signature Syntax and Processing", RFC 3275, 966 March 2002. 968 [RFC3339] Klyne, G., Ed. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the 969 Internet: Timestamps", RFC 3339, July 2002. 971 [RFC4122] Leach, P., Mealling, M., and R. Salz, "A Universally 972 Unique IDentifier (UUID) URN Namespace", RFC 4122, 973 July 2005. 975 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 976 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, 977 May 2008. 979 [SWT] Hardt, D. and Y. Goland, "Simple Web Token (SWT)", 980 Version 0.9.5.1, November 2009. 982 [W3C.CR-xml11-20021015] 983 Cowan, J., "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.1", W3C 984 CR CR-xml11-20021015, October 2002. 986 [W3C.REC-xml-c14n-20010315] 987 Boyer, J., "Canonical XML Version 1.0", World Wide Web 988 Consortium Recommendation REC-xml-c14n-20010315, 989 March 2001, 990 . 992 Appendix A. JWT Examples 994 This section contains examples of JWTs. For other example JWTs, see 995 Section 6.1 and Appendices A.1, A.2, and A.3 of [JWS]. 997 A.1. Example Encrypted JWT 999 This example encrypts the same claims as used in Section 3.1 to the 1000 recipient using RSAES-PKCS1-V1_5 and AES_128_CBC_HMAC_SHA_256. 1002 The following example JOSE Header declares that: 1004 o the Content Encryption Key is encrypted to the recipient using the 1005 RSAES-PKCS1-V1_5 algorithm to produce the JWE Encrypted Key and 1007 o the Plaintext is encrypted using the AES_128_CBC_HMAC_SHA_256 1008 algorithm to produce the JWE Ciphertext. 1010 {"alg":"RSA1_5","enc":"A128CBC-HS256"} 1012 Other than using the octets of the UTF-8 representation of the JWT 1013 Claims Set from Section 3.1 as the plaintext value, the computation 1014 of this JWT is identical to the computation of the JWE in Appendix 1015 A.2 of [JWE], including the keys used. 1017 The final result in this example (with line breaks for display 1018 purposes only) is: 1020 eyJhbGciOiJSU0ExXzUiLCJlbmMiOiJBMTI4Q0JDLUhTMjU2In0. 1021 QR1Owv2ug2WyPBnbQrRARTeEk9kDO2w8qDcjiHnSJflSdv1iNqhWXaKH4MqAkQtM 1022 oNfABIPJaZm0HaA415sv3aeuBWnD8J-Ui7Ah6cWafs3ZwwFKDFUUsWHSK-IPKxLG 1023 TkND09XyjORj_CHAgOPJ-Sd8ONQRnJvWn_hXV1BNMHzUjPyYwEsRhDhzjAD26ima 1024 sOTsgruobpYGoQcXUwFDn7moXPRfDE8-NoQX7N7ZYMmpUDkR-Cx9obNGwJQ3nM52 1025 YCitxoQVPzjbl7WBuB7AohdBoZOdZ24WlN1lVIeh8v1K4krB8xgKvRU8kgFrEn_a 1026 1rZgN5TiysnmzTROF869lQ. 1027 AxY8DCtDaGlsbGljb3RoZQ. 1028 MKOle7UQrG6nSxTLX6Mqwt0orbHvAKeWnDYvpIAeZ72deHxz3roJDXQyhxx0wKaM 1029 HDjUEOKIwrtkHthpqEanSBNYHZgmNOV7sln1Eu9g3J8. 1030 fiK51VwhsxJ-siBMR-YFiA 1032 A.2. Example Nested JWT 1034 This example shows how a JWT can be used as the payload of a JWE or 1035 JWS to create a Nested JWT. In this case, the JWT Claims Set is 1036 first signed, and then encrypted. 1038 The inner signed JWT is identical to the example in Appendix A.2 of 1039 [JWS]. Therefore, its computation is not repeated here. This 1040 example then encrypts this inner JWT to the recipient using RSAES- 1041 PKCS1-V1_5 and AES_128_CBC_HMAC_SHA_256. 1043 The following example JOSE Header declares that: 1045 o the Content Encryption Key is encrypted to the recipient using the 1046 RSAES-PKCS1-V1_5 algorithm to produce the JWE Encrypted Key, 1048 o the Plaintext is encrypted using the AES_128_CBC_HMAC_SHA_256 1049 algorithm to produce the JWE Ciphertext, and 1051 o the Plaintext is itself a JWT. 1053 {"alg":"RSA1_5","enc":"A128CBC-HS256","cty":"JWT"} 1055 Base64url encoding the octets of the UTF-8 representation of the JOSE 1056 Header yields this encoded JOSE Header value: 1058 eyJhbGciOiJSU0ExXzUiLCJlbmMiOiJBMTI4Q0JDLUhTMjU2IiwiY3R5IjoiSldUIn0 1060 The computation of this JWT is identical to the computation of the 1061 JWE in Appendix A.2 of [JWE], other than that different JOSE Header, 1062 Plaintext, JWE Initialization Vector, and Content Encryption Key 1063 values are used. (The RSA key used is the same.) 1065 The Payload used is the octets of the ASCII representation of the JWT 1066 at the end of Appendix A.2.1 of [JWS] (with all whitespace and line 1067 breaks removed), which is a sequence of 458 octets. 1069 The JWE Initialization Vector value used (using JSON array notation) 1070 is: 1072 [82, 101, 100, 109, 111, 110, 100, 32, 87, 65, 32, 57, 56, 48, 53, 1073 50] 1075 This example uses the Content Encryption Key represented by the 1076 base64url encoded value below: 1078 GawgguFyGrWKav7AX4VKUg 1080 The final result for this Nested JWT (with line breaks for display 1081 purposes only) is: 1083 eyJhbGciOiJSU0ExXzUiLCJlbmMiOiJBMTI4Q0JDLUhTMjU2IiwiY3R5IjoiSldU 1084 In0. 1085 g_hEwksO1Ax8Qn7HoN-BVeBoa8FXe0kpyk_XdcSmxvcM5_P296JXXtoHISr_DD_M 1086 qewaQSH4dZOQHoUgKLeFly-9RI11TG-_Ge1bZFazBPwKC5lJ6OLANLMd0QSL4fYE 1087 b9ERe-epKYE3xb2jfY1AltHqBO-PM6j23Guj2yDKnFv6WO72tteVzm_2n17SBFvh 1088 DuR9a2nHTE67pe0XGBUS_TK7ecA-iVq5COeVdJR4U4VZGGlxRGPLRHvolVLEHx6D 1089 YyLpw30Ay9R6d68YCLi9FYTq3hIXPK_-dmPlOUlKvPr1GgJzRoeC9G5qCvdcHWsq 1090 JGTO_z3Wfo5zsqwkxruxwA. 1091 UmVkbW9uZCBXQSA5ODA1Mg. 1092 VwHERHPvCNcHHpTjkoigx3_ExK0Qc71RMEParpatm0X_qpg-w8kozSjfNIPPXiTB 1093 BLXR65CIPkFqz4l1Ae9w_uowKiwyi9acgVztAi-pSL8GQSXnaamh9kX1mdh3M_TT 1094 -FZGQFQsFhu0Z72gJKGdfGE-OE7hS1zuBD5oEUfk0Dmb0VzWEzpxxiSSBbBAzP10 1095 l56pPfAtrjEYw-7ygeMkwBl6Z_mLS6w6xUgKlvW6ULmkV-uLC4FUiyKECK4e3WZY 1096 Kw1bpgIqGYsw2v_grHjszJZ-_I5uM-9RA8ycX9KqPRp9gc6pXmoU_-27ATs9XCvr 1097 ZXUtK2902AUzqpeEUJYjWWxSNsS-r1TJ1I-FMJ4XyAiGrfmo9hQPcNBYxPz3GQb2 1098 8Y5CLSQfNgKSGt0A4isp1hBUXBHAndgtcslt7ZoQJaKe_nNJgNliWtWpJ_ebuOpE 1099 l8jdhehdccnRMIwAmU1n7SPkmhIl1HlSOpvcvDfhUN5wuqU955vOBvfkBOh5A11U 1100 zBuo2WlgZ6hYi9-e3w29bR0C2-pp3jbqxEDw3iWaf2dc5b-LnR0FEYXvI_tYk5rd 1101 _J9N0mg0tQ6RbpxNEMNoA9QWk5lgdPvbh9BaO195abQ. 1102 AVO9iT5AV4CzvDJCdhSFlQ 1104 Appendix B. Relationship of JWTs to SAML Assertions 1106 SAML 2.0 [OASIS.saml-core-2.0-os] provides a standard for creating 1107 security tokens with greater expressivity and more security options 1108 than supported by JWTs. However, the cost of this flexibility and 1109 expressiveness is both size and complexity. SAML's use of XML 1110 [W3C.CR-xml11-20021015] and XML DSIG [RFC3275] contributes to the 1111 size of SAML assertions; its use of XML and especially XML 1112 Canonicalization [W3C.REC-xml-c14n-20010315] contributes to their 1113 complexity. 1115 JWTs are intended to provide a simple security token format that is 1116 small enough to fit into HTTP headers and query arguments in URIs. 1117 It does this by supporting a much simpler token model than SAML and 1118 using the JSON [RFC7159] object encoding syntax. It also supports 1119 securing tokens using Message Authentication Codes (MACs) and digital 1120 signatures using a smaller (and less flexible) format than XML DSIG. 1122 Therefore, while JWTs can do some of the things SAML assertions do, 1123 JWTs are not intended as a full replacement for SAML assertions, but 1124 rather as a token format to be used when ease of implementation or 1125 compactness are considerations. 1127 SAML Assertions are always statements made by an entity about a 1128 subject. JWTs are often used in the same manner, with the entity 1129 making the statements being represented by the "iss" (issuer) claim, 1130 and the subject being represented by the "sub" (subject) claim. 1131 However, with these claims being optional, other uses of the JWT 1132 format are also permitted. 1134 Appendix C. Relationship of JWTs to Simple Web Tokens (SWTs) 1136 Both JWTs and Simple Web Tokens SWT [SWT], at their core, enable sets 1137 of claims to be communicated between applications. For SWTs, both 1138 the claim names and claim values are strings. For JWTs, while claim 1139 names are strings, claim values can be any JSON type. Both token 1140 types offer cryptographic protection of their content: SWTs with HMAC 1141 SHA-256 and JWTs with a choice of algorithms, including signature, 1142 MAC, and encryption algorithms. 1144 Appendix D. Acknowledgements 1146 The authors acknowledge that the design of JWTs was intentionally 1147 influenced by the design and simplicity of Simple Web Tokens [SWT] 1148 and ideas for JSON tokens that Dick Hardt discussed within the OpenID 1149 community. 1151 Solutions for signing JSON content were previously explored by Magic 1152 Signatures [MagicSignatures], JSON Simple Sign [JSS], and Canvas 1153 Applications [CanvasApp], all of which influenced this draft. 1155 This specification is the work of the OAuth Working Group, which 1156 includes dozens of active and dedicated participants. In particular, 1157 the following individuals contributed ideas, feedback, and wording 1158 that influenced this specification: 1160 Dirk Balfanz, Richard Barnes, Brian Campbell, Breno de Medeiros, Dick 1161 Hardt, Joe Hildebrand, Jeff Hodges, Edmund Jay, Yaron Y. Goland, Ben 1162 Laurie, James Manger, Prateek Mishra, Tony Nadalin, Axel Nennker, 1163 John Panzer, Emmanuel Raviart, David Recordon, Eric Rescorla, Jim 1164 Schaad, Paul Tarjan, Hannes Tschofenig, and Sean Turner. 1166 Hannes Tschofenig and Derek Atkins chaired the OAuth working group 1167 and Sean Turner, Stephen Farrell, and Kathleen Moriarty served as 1168 Security area directors during the creation of this specification. 1170 Appendix E. Document History 1172 [[ to be removed by the RFC Editor before publication as an RFC ]] 1174 -23 1175 o Replaced the terms JWS Header, JWE Header, and JWT Header with a 1176 single JOSE Header term defined in the JWS specification. This 1177 also enabled a single Header Parameter definition to be used and 1178 reduced other areas of duplication between specifications. 1180 -22 1182 o Revised the introduction to the Security Considerations section. 1183 Also introduced subsection headings for security considerations 1184 items. 1186 o Added text about when applications typically would and would not 1187 use the "typ" header parameter. 1189 -21 1191 o Removed unnecessary informative JWK spec reference. 1193 -20 1195 o Changed the RFC 6755 reference to be normative. 1197 o Changed the JWK reference to be informative. 1199 o Described potential sources of ambiguity in representing the JSON 1200 objects used in the examples. The octets of the actual UTF-8 1201 representations of the JSON objects used in the examples are 1202 included to remove these ambiguities. 1204 o Noted that octet sequences are depicted using JSON array notation. 1206 -19 1208 o Specified that support for Nested JWTs is optional and that 1209 applications using this specification can impose additional 1210 requirements upon implementations that they use. 1212 o Updated the JSON reference to RFC 7159. 1214 -18 1216 o Clarified that the base64url encoding includes no line breaks, 1217 white space, or other additional characters. 1219 o Removed circularity in the audience claim definition. 1221 o Clarified that it is entirely up to applications which claims to 1222 use. 1224 o Changed "SHOULD" to "MUST" in "in the absence of such 1225 requirements, all claims that are not understood by 1226 implementations MUST be ignored". 1228 o Clarified that applications can define their own processing rules 1229 for claims replicated in header parameters, rather than always 1230 requiring that they be identical in the JWT Header and JWT Claims 1231 Set. 1233 o Removed a JWT creation step that duplicated a step in the 1234 underlying JWS or JWE creation. 1236 o Added security considerations about using JWTs in trust decisions. 1238 -17 1240 o Corrected RFC 2119 terminology usage. 1242 o Replaced references to draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis with RFC 7158. 1244 -16 1246 o Changed some references from being normative to informative, per 1247 JOSE issue #90. 1249 -15 1251 o Replaced references to RFC 4627 with draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis. 1253 -14 1255 o Referenced the JWE section on Distinguishing between JWS and JWE 1256 Objects. 1258 -13 1260 o Added Claim Description registry field. 1262 o Used Header Parameter Description registry field. 1264 o Removed the phrases "JWA signing algorithms" and "JWA encryption 1265 algorithms". 1267 o Removed the term JSON Text Object. 1269 -12 1270 o Tracked the JOSE change refining the "typ" and "cty" definitions 1271 to always be MIME Media Types, with the omission of "application/" 1272 prefixes recommended for brevity. For compatibility with legacy 1273 implementations, it is RECOMMENDED that "JWT" always be spelled 1274 using uppercase characters when used as a "typ" or "cty" value. 1275 As side effects, this change removed the "typ" Claim definition 1276 and narrowed the uses of the URI 1277 "urn:ietf:params:oauth:token-type:jwt". 1279 o Updated base64url definition to match JOSE definition. 1281 o Changed terminology from "Reserved Claim Name" to "Registered 1282 Claim Name" to match JOSE terminology change. 1284 o Applied other editorial changes to track parallel JOSE changes. 1286 o Clarified that the subject value may be scoped to be locally 1287 unique in the context of the issuer or may be globally unique. 1289 -11 1291 o Added a Nested JWT example. 1293 o Added "sub" to the list of Claims registered for use as Header 1294 Parameter values when an unencrypted representation is required in 1295 an encrypted JWT. 1297 -10 1299 o Allowed Claims to be replicated as Header Parameters in encrypted 1300 JWTs as needed by applications that require an unencrypted 1301 representation of specific Claims. 1303 -09 1305 o Clarified that the "typ" header parameter is used in an 1306 application-specific manner and has no effect upon the JWT 1307 processing. 1309 o Stated that recipients MUST either reject JWTs with duplicate 1310 Header Parameter Names or with duplicate Claim Names or use a JSON 1311 parser that returns only the lexically last duplicate member name. 1313 -08 1315 o Tracked a change to how JWEs are computed (which only affected the 1316 example encrypted JWT value). 1318 -07 1320 o Defined that the default action for claims that are not understood 1321 is to ignore them unless otherwise specified by applications. 1323 o Changed from using the term "byte" to "octet" when referring to 8 1324 bit values. 1326 o Tracked encryption computation changes in the JWE specification. 1328 -06 1330 o Changed the name of the "prn" claim to "sub" (subject) both to 1331 more closely align with SAML name usage and to use a more 1332 intuitive name. 1334 o Allow JWTs to have multiple audiences. 1336 o Applied editorial improvements suggested by Jeff Hodges, Prateek 1337 Mishra, and Hannes Tschofenig. Many of these simplified the 1338 terminology used. 1340 o Explained why Nested JWTs should be signed and then encrypted. 1342 o Clarified statements of the form "This claim is OPTIONAL" to "Use 1343 of this claim is OPTIONAL". 1345 o Referenced String Comparison Rules in JWS. 1347 o Added seriesInfo information to Internet Draft references. 1349 -05 1351 o Updated values for example AES CBC calculations. 1353 -04 1355 o Promoted Initialization Vector from being a header parameter to 1356 being a top-level JWE element. This saves approximately 16 bytes 1357 in the compact serialization, which is a significant savings for 1358 some use cases. Promoting the Initialization Vector out of the 1359 header also avoids repeating this shared value in the JSON 1360 serialization. 1362 o Applied changes made by the RFC Editor to RFC 6749's registry 1363 language to this specification. 1365 o Reference RFC 6755 -- An IETF URN Sub-Namespace for OAuth. 1367 -03 1369 o Added statement that "StringOrURI values are compared as case- 1370 sensitive strings with no transformations or canonicalizations 1371 applied". 1373 o Indented artwork elements to better distinguish them from the body 1374 text. 1376 -02 1378 o Added an example of an encrypted JWT. 1380 o Added this language to Registration Templates: "This name is case 1381 sensitive. Names that match other registered names in a case 1382 insensitive manner SHOULD NOT be accepted." 1384 o Applied editorial suggestions. 1386 -01 1388 o Added the "cty" (content type) header parameter for declaring type 1389 information about the secured content, as opposed to the "typ" 1390 (type) header parameter, which declares type information about 1391 this object. This significantly simplified nested JWTs. 1393 o Moved description of how to determine whether a header is for a 1394 JWS or a JWE from the JWT spec to the JWE spec. 1396 o Changed registration requirements from RFC Required to 1397 Specification Required with Expert Review. 1399 o Added Registration Template sections for defined registries. 1401 o Added Registry Contents sections to populate registry values. 1403 o Added "Collision Resistant Namespace" to the terminology section. 1405 o Numerous editorial improvements. 1407 -00 1409 o Created the initial IETF draft based upon 1410 draft-jones-json-web-token-10 with no normative changes. 1412 Authors' Addresses 1414 Michael B. Jones 1415 Microsoft 1417 Email: mbj@microsoft.com 1418 URI: http://self-issued.info/ 1420 John Bradley 1421 Ping Identity 1423 Email: ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com 1424 URI: http://www.thread-safe.com/ 1426 Nat Sakimura 1427 Nomura Research Institute 1429 Email: n-sakimura@nri.co.jp 1430 URI: http://nat.sakimura.org/