The Proof-of-Possession Key Semantics for CBOR Web Tokens (CWTs) specification has been updated to address issues identified by Roman Danyliw while writing his shepherd review. Thanks to Samuel Erdtman for fixing an incorrect example.
Key ID confirmation method considerations suggested by Jim Schaad have been added to the Proof-of-Possession Key Semantics for CBOR Web Tokens (CWTs) specification. Per discussions in the working group meeting in Bangkok, it’s now time for the shepherd review.
The JSON Web Token (JWT) Best Current Practices (BCP) specification has been updated to address the review comments from Security Area Director (AD) Eric Rescorla. Thanks to Eric for the review and to Yaron Sheffer for working on the responses with me.
Note that IETF publication has already been requested. The next step is for the shepherd review to be submitted and responded to.
The Proof-of-Possession Key Semantics for CBOR Web Tokens (CWTs) specification has been updated to addresses a few additional Working Group Last Call (WGLC) comments. All of the (few) changes were about improving the clarity of the exposition. I believe that this completes addressing the WGLC comments.
Thanks to Roman Danyliw for helping to categorize the remaining comments that needed to be addressed.
The Security Event Token (SET) specification is now RFC 8417. The abstract describes the specification as:
This specification defines the Security Event Token (SET) data structure. A SET describes statements of fact from the perspective of an issuer about a subject. These statements of fact represent an event that occurred directly to or about a security subject, for example, a statement about the issuance or revocation of a token on behalf of a subject. This specification is intended to enable representing security- and identity-related events. A SET is a JSON Web Token (JWT), which can be optionally signed and/or encrypted. SETs can be distributed via protocols such as HTTP.
The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Server Metadata specification is now RFC 8414. The abstract describes the specification as:
This specification defines a metadata format that an OAuth 2.0 client can use to obtain the information needed to interact with an OAuth 2.0 authorization server, including its endpoint locations and authorization server capabilities.
The specification defines a JSON metadata representation for OAuth 2.0 authorization servers that is compatible with OpenID Connect Discovery 1.0. This specification is a true instance of standardizing existing practice. OAuth 2.0 deployments have been using the OpenID Connect metadata format to describe their endpoints and capabilities for years. This RFC makes this existing practice a standard.
We’ve updated the Security Event Token (SET) specification to address feedback received from Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) members. We’ve actually published three versions in quick succession in preparation for tomorrow’s evaluation by the IESG.
Draft -11 incorporated feedback from Security Area Director Eric Rescorla and IANA Designated Expert Ned Freed. Changes were:
Clarified “iss” claim language about the SET issuer versus the security subject issuer.
Changed a “SHOULD” to a “MUST” in the “sub” claim description to be consistent with the Requirements for SET Profiles section.
Described the use of the “events” claim to prevent attackers from passing off other kinds of JWTs as SETs.
Stated that SETs are to be signed by an issuer that is trusted to do so for the use case.
Added quotes in the phrase ‘”token revoked” SET to be issued’ in the Timing Issues section.
The JSON Web Token (JWT) Best Current Practices (BCP) specification has been updated to address the Working Group Last Call (WGLC) feedback received. Thanks to Neil Madden for his numerous comments and to Carsten Bormann and Brian Campbell for their reviews.
Assuming the chairs concur, the next step should be to request publication.
The “CBOR Web Token (CWT)” specification is now RFC 8392 – an IETF standard. The abstract for the specification is:
CBOR Web Token (CWT) is a compact means of representing claims to be transferred between two parties. The claims in a CWT are encoded in the Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) is used for added application-layer security protection. A claim is a piece of information asserted about a subject and is represented as a name/value pair consisting of a claim name and a claim value. CWT is derived from JSON Web Token (JWT) but uses CBOR rather than JSON.
The syntax of two JWT claims registered by the OAuth Token Exchange specification has been changed as a result of developer feedback. Developers pointed out that the OAuth Token Introspection specification [RFC 7662] uses a “scope” string to represent scope values, whereas Token Exchange was defining an array-valued “scp” claim to represent scope values. The former also uses a “client_id” element to represent OAuth Client ID values, whereas the latter was using a “cid” claim for the same purpose.
After consulting with the working group, the OAuth Token Exchange claim names have been changed to “scope” and “client_id”. Thanks to Torsten Lodderstedt for pointing out the inconsistencies and to Brian Campbell for seeking consensus and making the updates.
One more clarification to the CBOR Web Token (CWT) specification has been made to address a comment by IESG member Adam Roach. This version is being sent to the RFC Editor in preparation for its publication as an RFC. The change was:
Added section references when the terms “NumericDate” and “StringOrURI” are used, as suggested by Adam Roach.
Special thanks to Security Area Director Kathleen Moriarty for helping get this across the finish line!
Cleaned up the descriptions of the numeric ranges of claim keys being registered in the registration template for the “CBOR Web Token (CWT) Claims” registry, as suggested by Adam Roach.
Clarified the relationships between the JWT and CWT “NumericDate” and “StringOrURI” terms, as suggested by Adam Roach.
Eliminated unnecessary uses of the word “type”, as suggested by Adam Roach.
Added the text “IANA must only accept registry updates from the Designated Experts and should direct all requests for registration to the review mailing list” from RFC 7519, as suggested by Amanda Baber of IANA, which is also intended to address Alexey Melnikov’s comment.
Removed a superfluous comma, as suggested by Warren Kumari.
The OAuth Authorization Server Metadata specification has been updated to address additional IESG feedback. The only change was to clarify the meaning of “case-insensitive”, as suggested by Alexey Melnikov.