idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-08.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 (March 19, 2014) is 3684 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) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 6755 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 7159 (Obsoleted by RFC 8259) == Outdated reference: A later version (-30) exists of draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-16 Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). 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 B. Campbell 5 Expires: September 20, 2014 Ping Identity 6 C. Mortimore 7 Salesforce 8 March 19, 2014 10 JSON Web Token (JWT) Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and 11 Authorization Grants 12 draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-08 14 Abstract 16 This specification defines the use of a JSON Web Token (JWT) Bearer 17 Token as a means for requesting an OAuth 2.0 access token as well as 18 for use as a means of client authentication. 20 Status of this Memo 22 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 23 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 25 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 26 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 27 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 28 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 30 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 31 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 32 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 33 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 35 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 20, 2014. 37 Copyright Notice 39 Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 40 document authors. All rights reserved. 42 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 43 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 44 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 45 publication of this document. Please review these documents 46 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 47 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 48 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 49 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 50 described in the Simplified BSD License. 52 Table of Contents 54 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 1.1. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 56 1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 57 2. HTTP Parameter Bindings for Transporting Assertions . . . . . 4 58 2.1. Using JWTs as Authorization Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 59 2.2. Using JWTs for Client Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . 5 60 3. JWT Format and Processing Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 61 3.1. Authorization Grant Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 62 3.2. Client Authentication Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 63 4. Authorization Grant Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 64 5. Interoperability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 65 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 66 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 67 7.1. Sub-Namespace Registration of 68 urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:jwt-bearer . . . . . . . 10 69 7.2. Sub-Namespace Registration of 70 urn:ietf:params:oauth:client-assertion-type:jwt-bearer . . 10 71 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 72 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 73 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 74 Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 75 Appendix B. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 76 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 78 1. Introduction 80 JSON Web Token (JWT) [JWT] is a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) 81 [RFC7159] based security token encoding that enables identity and 82 security information to be shared across security domains. A 83 security token is generally issued by an identity provider and 84 consumed by a relying party that relies on its content to identify 85 the token's subject for security related purposes. 87 The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework [RFC6749] provides a method for 88 making authenticated HTTP requests to a resource using an access 89 token. Access tokens are issued to third-party clients by an 90 authorization server (AS) with the (sometimes implicit) approval of 91 the resource owner. In OAuth, an authorization grant is an abstract 92 term used to describe intermediate credentials that represent the 93 resource owner authorization. An authorization grant is used by the 94 client to obtain an access token. Several authorization grant types 95 are defined to support a wide range of client types and user 96 experiences. OAuth also allows for the definition of new extension 97 grant types to support additional clients or to provide a bridge 98 between OAuth and other trust frameworks. Finally, OAuth allows the 99 definition of additional authentication mechanisms to be used by 100 clients when interacting with the authorization server. 102 The Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and 103 Authorization Grants [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions] specification is an 104 abstract extension to OAuth 2.0 that provides a general framework for 105 the use of Assertions (a.k.a. Security Tokens) as client credentials 106 and/or authorization grants with OAuth 2.0. This specification 107 profiles the Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication 108 and Authorization Grants [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions] specification to 109 define an extension grant type that uses a JSON Web Token (JWT) 110 Bearer Token to request an OAuth 2.0 access token as well as for use 111 as client credentials. The format and processing rules for the JWT 112 defined in this specification are intentionally similar, though not 113 identical, to those in the closely related SAML 2.0 Profile for OAuth 114 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants 115 [I-D.ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer] specification. 117 This document defines how a JSON Web Token (JWT) Bearer Token can be 118 used to request an access token when a client wishes to utilize an 119 existing trust relationship, expressed through the semantics of (and 120 digital signature or keyed message digest calculated over) the JWT, 121 without a direct user approval step at the authorization server. It 122 also defines how a JWT can be used as a client authentication 123 mechanism. The use of a security token for client authentication is 124 orthogonal to and separable from using a security token as an 125 authorization grant. They can be used either in combination or 126 separately. Client authentication using a JWT is nothing more than 127 an alternative way for a client to authenticate to the token endpoint 128 and must be used in conjunction with some grant type to form a 129 complete and meaningful protocol request. JWT authorization grants 130 may be used with or without client authentication or identification. 131 Whether or not client authentication is needed in conjunction with a 132 JWT authorization grant, as well as the supported types of client 133 authentication, are policy decisions at the discretion of the 134 authorization server. 136 The process by which the client obtains the JWT, prior to exchanging 137 it with the authorization server or using it for client 138 authentication, is out of scope. 140 1.1. Notational Conventions 142 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 143 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 144 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 146 Unless otherwise noted, all the protocol parameter names and values 147 are case sensitive. 149 1.2. Terminology 151 All terms are as defined in The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework 152 [RFC6749], the Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client 153 Authentication and Authorization Grants [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions], 154 and the JSON Web Token (JWT) [JWT] specifications. 156 2. HTTP Parameter Bindings for Transporting Assertions 158 The Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and 159 Authorization Grants [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions] specification 160 defines generic HTTP parameters for transporting Assertions (a.k.a. 161 Security Tokens) during interactions with a token endpoint. This 162 section defines specific parameters and treatments of those 163 parameters for use with JWT bearer tokens. 165 2.1. Using JWTs as Authorization Grants 167 To use a Bearer JWT as an authorization grant, use an access token 168 request as defined in Section 4 of the Assertion Framework for OAuth 169 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants 170 [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions] specification with the following specific 171 parameter values and encodings. 173 The value of the "grant_type" parameter MUST be 174 "urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:jwt-bearer". 176 The value of the "assertion" parameter MUST contain a single JWT. 178 The "scope" parameter may be used, as defined in the Assertion 179 Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization 180 Grants [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions] specification, to indicate the 181 requested scope. 183 Authentication of the client is optional, as described in Section 184 3.2.1 of OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749] and consequently, the "client_id" is 185 only needed when a form of client authentication that relies on the 186 parameter is used. 188 The following non-normative example demonstrates an Access Token 189 Request with a JWT as an authorization grant (with extra line breaks 190 for display purposes only): 192 POST /token.oauth2 HTTP/1.1 193 Host: as.example.com 194 Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded 196 grant_type=urn%3Aietf%3Aparams%3Aoauth%3Agrant-type%3Ajwt-bearer 197 &assertion=eyJhbGciOiJFUzI1NiJ9. 198 eyJpc3Mi[...omitted for brevity...]. 199 J9l-ZhwP[...omitted for brevity...] 201 2.2. Using JWTs for Client Authentication 203 To use a JWT Bearer Token for client authentication, use the 204 following parameter values and encodings. 206 The value of the "client_assertion_type" parameter MUST be 207 "urn:ietf:params:oauth:client-assertion-type:jwt-bearer". 209 The value of the "client_assertion" parameter MUST contain a single 210 JWT. 212 The following non-normative example demonstrates client 213 authentication using a JWT during the presentation of an 214 authorization code grant in an Access Token Request (with extra line 215 breaks for display purposes only): 217 POST /token.oauth2 HTTP/1.1 218 Host: as.example.com 219 Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded 221 grant_type=authorization_code& 222 code=vAZEIHjQTHuGgaSvyW9hO0RpusLzkvTOww3trZBxZpo& 223 client_assertion_type=urn%3Aietf%3Aparams%3Aoauth%3A 224 client-assertion-type%3Ajwt-bearer& 225 client_assertion=eyJhbGciOiJSUzI1NiJ9. 226 eyJpc3Mi[...omitted for brevity...]. 227 cC4hiUPo[...omitted for brevity...] 229 3. JWT Format and Processing Requirements 231 In order to issue an access token response as described in OAuth 2.0 232 [RFC6749] or to rely on a JWT for client authentication, the 233 authorization server MUST validate the JWT according to the criteria 234 below. Application of additional restrictions and policy are at the 235 discretion of the authorization server. 237 1. The JWT MUST contain an "iss" (issuer) claim that contains a 238 unique identifier for the entity that issued the JWT. In the 239 absence of an application profile specifying otherwise, 240 compliant applications MUST compare Issuer values using the 241 Simple String Comparison method defined in Section 6.2.1 of RFC 242 3986 [RFC3986]. 244 2. The JWT MUST contain a "sub" (subject) claim identifying the 245 principal that is the subject of the JWT. Two cases need to be 246 differentiated: 248 A. For the authorization grant, the subject SHOULD identify an 249 authorized accessor for whom the access token is being 250 requested (typically the resource owner, or an authorized 251 delegate). 253 B. For client authentication, the subject MUST be the 254 "client_id" of the OAuth client. 256 3. The JWT MUST contain an "aud" (audience) claim containing a 257 value that identifies the authorization server as an intended 258 audience. The token endpoint URL of the authorization server 259 MAY be used as a value for an "aud" element to identify the 260 authorization server as an intended audience of the JWT. JWTs 261 that do not identify the authorization server as an intended 262 audience MUST be rejected. In the absence of an application 263 profile specifying otherwise, compliant applications MUST 264 compare the audience values using the Simple String Comparison 265 method defined in Section 6.2.1 of RFC 3986 [RFC3986]. 267 4. The JWT MUST contain an "exp" (expiration) claim that limits the 268 time window during which the JWT can be used. The authorization 269 server MUST verify that the expiration time has not passed, 270 subject to allowable clock skew between systems, and reject 271 expired JWTs. The authorization server MAY reject JWTs with an 272 "exp" claim value that is unreasonably far in the future. 274 5. The JWT MAY contain an "nbf" (not before) claim that identifies 275 the time before which the token MUST NOT be accepted for 276 processing. 278 6. The JWT MAY contain an "iat" (issued at) claim that identifies 279 the time at which the JWT was issued. The authorization server 280 MAY reject JWTs with an "iat" claim value that is unreasonably 281 far in the past. 283 7. The JWT MAY contain a "jti" (JWT ID) claim that provides a 284 unique identifier for the token. The authorization server MAY 285 ensure that JWTs are not replayed by maintaining the set of used 286 "jti" values for the length of time for which the JWT would be 287 considered valid based on the applicable "exp" instant. 289 8. The JWT MAY contain other claims. 291 9. The JWT MUST be digitally signed or have a keyed message digest 292 applied by the issuer. The authorization server MUST reject 293 JWTs with an invalid signature or keyed message digest. 295 10. The authorization server MUST verify that the JWT is valid in 296 all other respects per JSON Web Token (JWT) [JWT]. 298 3.1. Authorization Grant Processing 300 JWT authorization grants may be used with or without client 301 authentication or identification. Whether or not client 302 authentication is needed in conjunction with a JWT authorization 303 grant, as well as the supported types of client authentication, are 304 policy decisions at the discretion of the authorization server. 305 However, if client credentials are present in the request, the 306 authorization server MUST validate them. 308 If the JWT is not valid, or the current time is not within the 309 token's valid time window for use, the authorization server MUST 310 construct an error response as defined in OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749]. The 311 value of the "error" parameter MUST be the "invalid_grant" error 312 code. The authorization server MAY include additional information 313 regarding the reasons the JWT was considered invalid using the 314 "error_description" or "error_uri" parameters. 316 For example: 318 HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request 319 Content-Type: application/json 320 Cache-Control: no-store 322 { 323 "error":"invalid_grant", 324 "error_description":"Audience validation failed" 325 } 327 3.2. Client Authentication Processing 329 If the client JWT is not valid, the authorization server MUST 330 construct an error response as defined in OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749]. The 331 value of the "error" parameter MUST be the "invalid_client" error 332 code. The authorization server MAY include additional information 333 regarding the reasons the JWT was considered invalid using the 334 "error_description" or "error_uri" parameters. 336 4. Authorization Grant Example 338 Though non-normative, the following examples illustrate what a 339 conforming JWT and access token request would look like. 341 The example shows a JWT issued and signed by the system entity 342 identified as "https://jwt-idp.example.com". The subject of the JWT 343 is identified by email address as "mike@example.com". The intended 344 audience of the JWT is "https://jwt-rp.example.net", which is an 345 identifier with which the authorization server identifies itself. 346 The JWT is sent as part of an access token request to the 347 authorization server's token endpoint at 348 "https://authz.example.net/token.oauth2". 350 Below is an example JSON object that could be encoded to produce the 351 JWT Claims Object for a JWT: 353 {"iss":"https://jwt-idp.example.com", 354 "sub":"mailto:mike@example.com", 355 "aud":"https://jwt-rp.example.net", 356 "nbf":1300815780, 357 "exp":1300819380, 358 "http://claims.example.com/member":true} 360 The following example JSON object, used as the header of a JWT, 361 declares that the JWT is signed with the ECDSA P-256 SHA-256 362 algorithm. 364 {"alg":"ES256"} 366 To present the JWT with the claims and header shown in the previous 367 example as part of an access token request, for example, the client 368 might make the following HTTPS request (with extra line breaks for 369 display purposes only): 371 POST /token.oauth2 HTTP/1.1 372 Host: authz.example.net 373 Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded 375 grant_type=urn%3Aietf%3Aparams%3Aoauth%3Agrant-type%3Ajwt-bearer 376 &assertion=eyJhbGciOiJFUzI1NiJ9. 377 eyJpc3Mi[...omitted for brevity...]. 378 J9l-ZhwP[...omitted for brevity...] 380 5. Interoperability Considerations 382 Agreement between system entities regarding identifiers, keys, and 383 endpoints is required in order to achieve interoperable deployments 384 of this profile. Specific items that require agreement are as 385 follows: values for the issuer and audience identifiers, the location 386 of the token endpoint, the key used to apply and verify the digital 387 signature or keyed message digest over the JWT, one-time use 388 restrictions on JWT, maximum JWT lifetime allowed, and the specific 389 subject and claim requirements of the JWT. The exchange of such 390 information is explicitly out of scope for this specification. In 391 some cases, additional profiles may be created that constrain or 392 prescribe these values or specify how they are to be exchanged. 393 Examples of such profiles include the OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client 394 Registration Core Protocol [I-D.ietf-oauth-dyn-reg], OpenID Connect 395 Dynamic Client Registration 1.0 [OpenID.Registration], and OpenID 396 Connect Discovery 1.0 [OpenID.Discovery]. 398 6. Security Considerations 400 The security considerations described within the Assertion Framework 401 for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants 402 [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions], The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework 403 [RFC6749], and the JSON Web Token (JWT) [JWT] specifications are all 404 applicable to this document. 406 The specification does not mandate replay protection for the JWT 407 usage for either the authorization grant or for client 408 authentication. It is an optional feature, which implementations may 409 employ at their own discretion. 411 7. IANA Considerations 413 7.1. Sub-Namespace Registration of 414 urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:jwt-bearer 416 This specification registers the value "grant-type:jwt-bearer" in the 417 IANA urn:ietf:params:oauth registry established in An IETF URN Sub- 418 Namespace for OAuth [RFC6755]. 420 o URN: urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:jwt-bearer 422 o Common Name: JWT Bearer Token Grant Type Profile for OAuth 2.0 424 o Change controller: IETF 426 o Specification Document: [[this document]] 428 7.2. Sub-Namespace Registration of 429 urn:ietf:params:oauth:client-assertion-type:jwt-bearer 431 This specification registers the value 432 "client-assertion-type:jwt-bearer" in the IANA urn:ietf:params:oauth 433 registry established in An IETF URN Sub-Namespace for OAuth 434 [RFC6755]. 436 o URN: urn:ietf:params:oauth:client-assertion-type:jwt-bearer 438 o Common Name: JWT Bearer Token Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client 439 Authentication 441 o Change controller: IETF 443 o Specification Document: [[this document]] 445 8. References 447 8.1. Normative References 449 [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions] 450 Campbell, B., Mortimore, C., Jones, M., and Y. Goland, 451 "Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication 452 and Authorization Grants", draft-ietf-oauth-assertions 453 (work in progress), March 2014. 455 [JWT] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token 456 (JWT)", draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token (work in 457 progress), March 2014. 459 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 460 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 462 [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform 463 Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, 464 RFC 3986, January 2005. 466 [RFC6749] Hardt, D., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework", 467 RFC 6749, October 2012. 469 [RFC6755] Campbell, B. and H. Tschofenig, "An IETF URN Sub-Namespace 470 for OAuth", RFC 6755, October 2012. 472 [RFC7159] Bray, T., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data 473 Interchange Format", RFC 7159, March 2014. 475 8.2. Informative References 477 [I-D.ietf-oauth-dyn-reg] 478 Richer, J., Jones, M., Bradley, J., Machulak, M., and P. 479 Hunt, "OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration Core 480 Protocol", draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-16 (work in progress), 481 February 2014. 483 [I-D.ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer] 484 Campbell, B., Mortimore, C., and M. Jones, "SAML 2.0 485 Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and 486 Authorization Grants", draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer (work 487 in progress), March 2014. 489 [OpenID.Discovery] 490 Sakimura, N., Bradley, J., Jones, M., and E. Jay, "OpenID 491 Connect Discovery 1.0", February 2014. 493 [OpenID.Registration] 494 Sakimura, N., Bradley, J., and M. Jones, "OpenID Connect 495 Dynamic Client Registration 1.0", February 2014. 497 Appendix A. Acknowledgements 499 This profile was derived from SAML 2.0 Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client 500 Authentication and Authorization Grants [I-D.ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer] 501 by Brian Campbell and Chuck Mortimore. 503 Appendix B. Document History 505 [[ to be removed by the RFC editor before publication as an RFC ]] 507 draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-08 509 o Updated references, including replacing references to RFC 4627 510 with RFC 7159. 512 draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-07 514 o Clean up language around subject per 515 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg12250.html. 517 o As suggested in 518 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg12251.html 519 stated that "In the absence of an application profile specifying 520 otherwise, compliant applications MUST compare the audience values 521 using the Simple String Comparison method defined in Section 6.2.1 522 of RFC 3986." 524 o Added one-time use, maximum lifetime, and specific subject and 525 attribute requirements to Interoperability Considerations based on 526 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg12252.html. 528 o Remove "or its subject confirmation requirements cannot be met" 529 text. 531 o Reword security considerations and mention that replay protection 532 is not mandated based on 533 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg12259.html. 535 -06 537 o Stated that issuer and audience values SHOULD be compared using 538 the Simple String Comparison method defined in Section 6.2.1 of 539 RFC 3986 unless otherwise specified by the application. 541 -05 542 o Changed title from "JSON Web Token (JWT) Bearer Token Profiles for 543 OAuth 2.0" to "JSON Web Token (JWT) Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client 544 Authentication and Authorization Grants" to be more explicit about 545 the scope of the document per 546 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg11063.html. 548 o Numbered the list of processing rules. 550 o Smallish editorial cleanups to try and improve readability and 551 comprehensibility. 553 o Cleaner split out of the processing rules in cases where they 554 differ for client authentication and authorization grants. 556 o Clarified the parameters that are used/available for authorization 557 grants. 559 o Added Interoperability Considerations section. 561 o Added more explanatory context to the example in Section 4. 563 -04 565 o Changed the name of the "prn" claim to "sub" (subject) both to 566 more closely align with SAML name usage and to use a more 567 intuitive name. 569 o Added seriesInfo information to Internet Draft references. 571 -03 573 o Reference RFC 6749 and RFC 6755. 575 -02 577 o Add more text to intro explaining that an assertion/JWT grant type 578 can be used with or without client authentication/identification 579 and that client assertion/JWT authentication is nothing more than 580 an alternative way for a client to authenticate to the token 581 endpoint 583 o Add examples to Sections 2.1 and 2.2 585 o Update references 587 -01 588 o Tracked specification name changes: "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization 589 Protocol" to "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework" and "OAuth 590 2.0 Assertion Profile" to "Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0". 592 o Merged in changes between draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer-11 and 593 draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer-13. All changes were strictly 594 editorial. 596 -00 598 o Created the initial IETF draft based upon 599 draft-jones-oauth-jwt-bearer-04 with no normative changes. 601 Authors' Addresses 603 Michael B. Jones 604 Microsoft 606 Email: mbj@microsoft.com 607 URI: http://self-issued.info/ 609 Brian Campbell 610 Ping Identity 612 Email: brian.d.campbell@gmail.com 614 Chuck Mortimore 615 Salesforce 617 Email: cmortimore@salesforce.com