OAuth Working Group M. JonesInternet-Draft MicrosoftIntended status: Standards Track B. CampbellExpires: May 16, 2015 Ping Identity C. Mortimore Salesforce November 12, 2014JSON Web Token (JWT) Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication andAuthorization Grantsdraft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-12Abstract This specification defines the use of a JSON Web Token (JWT) Bearer Token as a means for requesting an OAuth 2.0 access token as well as for use as a means of client authentication.Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions ofBCP 78 andBCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is athttp://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." This Internet-Draft will expire on May 16, 2015.Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject toBCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described inSection 4.e ofJones, et al. Expires May 16, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft OAuth JWT Assertion Profiles November 2014 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.Table of Contents1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21.1. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42. HTTP Parameter Bindings for Transporting Assertions . . . . .42.1. Using JWTs as Authorization Grants . . . . . . . . . . .42.2. Using JWTs for Client Authentication . . . . . . . . . .53. JWT Format and Processing Requirements . . . . . . . . . . .53.1. Authorization Grant Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . .73.2. Client Authentication Processing . . . . . . . . . . . .84. Authorization Grant Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85. Interoperability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .108. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 8.1. Sub-Namespace Registration of urn:ietf:params:oauth :grant-type:jwt-bearer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 8.2. Sub-Namespace Registration of urn:ietf:params:oauth :client-assertion-type:jwt-bearer . . . . . . . . . . . .109. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .119.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .119.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12Appendix B. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141. Introduction JSON Web Token (JWT) [JWT] is a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) [RFC7159] based security token encoding that enables identity and security information to be shared across security domains. A security token is generally issued by an identity provider and consumed by a relying party that relies on its content to identify the token's subject for security related purposes. The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework [RFC6749] provides a method for making authenticated HTTP requests to a resource using an access token. Access tokens are issued to third-party clients by an authorization server (AS) with the (sometimes implicit) approval of the resource owner. In OAuth, an authorization grant is an abstract term used to describe intermediate credentials that represent the resource owner authorization. An authorization grant is used by the client to obtain an access token. Several authorization grant types are defined to support a wide range of client types and userJones, et al. Expires May 16, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft OAuth JWT Assertion Profiles November 2014 experiences. OAuth also allows for the definition of new extension grant types to support additional clients or to provide a bridge between OAuth and other trust frameworks. Finally, OAuth allows the definition of additional authentication mechanisms to be used by clients when interacting with the authorization server. The Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions] specification is an abstract extension to OAuth 2.0 that provides a general framework for the use of Assertions (a.k.a. Security Tokens) as client credentials and/or authorization grants with OAuth 2.0. This specification profiles the Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions] specification to define an extension grant type that uses a JSON Web Token (JWT) Bearer Token to request an OAuth 2.0 access token as well as for use as client credentials. The format and processing rules for the JWT defined in this specification are intentionally similar, though not identical, to those in the closely related SAML 2.0 Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants [I-D.ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer] specification. The differences arise where the structure and semantics of JWTs differ from SAML assertions. JWTs, for example, have no direct equivalent to the <SubjectConfirmation> or <AuthnStatement> elements of SAML assertions. This document defines how a JSON Web Token (JWT) Bearer Token can be used to request an access token when a client wishes to utilize an existing trust relationship, expressed through the semantics of (and digital signature or Message Authentication Code calculated over) the JWT, without a direct user approval step at the authorization server. It also defines how a JWT can be used as a client authentication mechanism. The use of a security token for client authentication is orthogonal to and separable from using a security token as an authorization grant. They can be used either in combination or separately. Client authentication using a JWT is nothing more than an alternative way for a client to authenticate to the token endpoint and must be used in conjunction with some grant type to form a complete and meaningful protocol request. JWT authorization grants may be used with or without client authentication or identification. Whether or not client authentication is needed in conjunction with a JWT authorization grant, as well as the supported types of client authentication, are policy decisions at the discretion of the authorization server. The process by which the client obtains the JWT, prior to exchanging it with the authorization server or using it for client authentication, is out of scope.Jones, et al. Expires May 16, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft OAuth JWT Assertion Profiles November 20141.1. Notational Conventions The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described inRFC 2119 [RFC2119]. Unless otherwise noted, all the protocol parameter names and values are case sensitive.1.2. Terminology All terms are as defined in The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework [RFC6749], the Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions], and the JSON Web Token (JWT) [JWT] specifications.2. HTTP Parameter Bindings for Transporting Assertions The Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions] specification defines generic HTTP parameters for transporting Assertions (a.k.a. Security Tokens) during interactions with a token endpoint. This section defines specific parameters and treatments of those parameters for use with JWT bearer tokens.2.1. Using JWTs as Authorization Grants To use a Bearer JWT as an authorization grant, the client uses an access token request as defined inSection 4 of the Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions] specification with the following specific parameter values and encodings. The value of the "grant_type" is "urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant- type:jwt-bearer". The value of the "assertion" parameter MUST contain a single JWT. The "scope" parameter may be used, as defined in the Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions] specification, to indicate the requested scope. Authentication of the client is optional, as described inSection 3.2.1 of OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749] and consequently, the "client_id" is only needed when a form of client authentication that relies on the parameter is used.Jones, et al. Expires May 16, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft OAuth JWT Assertion Profiles November 2014 The following example demonstrates an Access Token Request with a JWT as an authorization grant (with extra line breaks for display purposes only): POST /token.oauth2 HTTP/1.1 Host: as.example.com Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded grant_type=urn%3Aietf%3Aparams%3Aoauth%3Agrant-type%3Ajwt-bearer &assertion=eyJhbGciOiJFUzI1NiJ9. eyJpc3Mi[...omitted for brevity...]. J9l-ZhwP[...omitted for brevity...]2.2. Using JWTs for Client Authentication To use a JWT Bearer Token for client authentication, the client uses the following parameter values and encodings. The value of the "client_assertion_type" is "urn:ietf:params:oauth:client-assertion-type:jwt-bearer". The value of the "client_assertion" parameter contains a single JWT. It MUST NOT contain more than one JWT. The following example demonstrates client authentication using a JWT during the presentation of an authorization code grant in an Access Token Request (with extra line breaks for display purposes only): POST /token.oauth2 HTTP/1.1 Host: as.example.com Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded grant_type=authorization_code& code=vAZEIHjQTHuGgaSvyW9hO0RpusLzkvTOww3trZBxZpo& client_assertion_type=urn%3Aietf%3Aparams%3Aoauth%3A client-assertion-type%3Ajwt-bearer& client_assertion=eyJhbGciOiJSUzI1NiJ9. eyJpc3Mi[...omitted for brevity...]. cC4hiUPo[...omitted for brevity...]3. JWT Format and Processing Requirements In order to issue an access token response as described in OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749] or to rely on a JWT for client authentication, the authorization server MUST validate the JWT according to the criteria below. Application of additional restrictions and policy are at the discretion of the authorization server.Jones, et al. Expires May 16, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft OAuth JWT Assertion Profiles November 2014 1. The JWT MUST contain an "iss" (issuer) claim that contains a unique identifier for the entity that issued the JWT. In the absence of an application profile specifying otherwise, compliant applications MUST compare Issuer values using the Simple String Comparison method defined in Section 6.2.1 ofRFC3986 [RFC3986]. 2. The JWT MUST contain a "sub" (subject) claim identifying the principal that is the subject of the JWT. Two cases need to be differentiated: A. For the authorization grant, the subject typically identifies an authorized accessor for which the access token is being requested (i.e., the resource owner or an authorized delegate), but in some cases, may be a pseudonymous identifier or other value denoting an anonymous user. B. For client authentication, the subject MUST be the "client_id" of the OAuth client. 3. The JWT MUST contain an "aud" (audience) claim containing a value that identifies the authorization server as an intended audience. The token endpoint URL of the authorization server MAY be used as a value for an "aud" element to identify the authorization server as an intended audience of the JWT. The Authorization Server MUST reject any JWT that does not contain its own identity as the intended audience In the absence of an application profile specifying otherwise, compliant applications MUST compare the audience values using the Simple String Comparison method defined inSection 6.2.1 of RFC 3986 [RFC3986]. As noted inSection 5, the precise strings to be used as the audience for a given Authorization Server must be configured out-of-band by the Authorization Server and the Issuer of the JWT. 4. The JWT MUST contain an "exp" (expiration) claim that limits the time window during which the JWT can be used. The authorization server MUST reject any JWT with an expiration time that has passed, subject to allowable clock skew between systems. Note that the authorization server may reject JWTs with an "exp" claim value that is unreasonably far in the future. 5. The JWT MAY contain an "nbf" (not before) claim that identifies the time before which the token MUST NOT be accepted for processing.Jones, et al. Expires May 16, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft OAuth JWT Assertion Profiles November 2014 6. The JWT MAY contain an "iat" (issued at) claim that identifies the time at which the JWT was issued. Note that the authorization server may reject JWTs with an "iat" claim value that is unreasonably far in the past. 7. The JWT MAY contain a "jti" (JWT ID) claim that provides a unique identifier for the token. The authorization server MAY ensure that JWTs are not replayed by maintaining the set of used "jti" values for the length of time for which the JWT would be considered valid based on the applicable "exp" instant. 8. The JWT MAY contain other claims. 9. The JWT MUST be digitally signed or have a Message Authentication Code applied by the issuer. The authorization server MUST reject JWTs with an invalid signature or Message Authentication Code. 10. The authorization server MUST reject a JWT that is not valid in all other respects per JSON Web Token (JWT) [JWT].3.1. Authorization Grant Processing JWT authorization grants may be used with or without client authentication or identification. Whether or not client authentication is needed in conjunction with a JWT authorization grant, as well as the supported types of client authentication, are policy decisions at the discretion of the authorization server. However, if client credentials are present in the request, the authorization server MUST validate them. If the JWT is not valid, or the current time is not within the token's valid time window for use, the authorization server constructs an error response as defined in OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749]. The value of the "error" parameter MUST be the "invalid_grant" error code. The authorization server MAY include additional information regarding the reasons the JWT was considered invalid using the "error_description" or "error_uri" parameters.Jones, et al. Expires May 16, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft OAuth JWT Assertion Profiles November 2014 For example: HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request Content-Type: application/json Cache-Control: no-store { "error":"invalid_grant", "error_description":"Audience validation failed" }3.2. Client Authentication Processing If the client JWT is not valid, the authorization server constructs an error response as defined in OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749]. The value of the "error" parameter MUST be the "invalid_client" error code. The authorization server MAY include additional information regarding the reasons the JWT was considered invalid using the "error_description" or "error_uri" parameters.4. Authorization Grant Example The following examples illustrate what a conforming JWT and an access token request would look like. The example shows a JWT issued and signed by the system entity identified as "https://jwt-idp.example.com". The subject of the JWT is identified by email address as "mike@example.com". The intended audience of the JWT is "https://jwt-rp.example.net", which is an identifier with which the authorization server identifies itself. The JWT is sent as part of an access token request to the authorization server's token endpoint at "https://authz.example.net/ token.oauth2". Below is an example JSON object that could be encoded to produce the JWT Claims Object for a JWT: {"iss":"https://jwt-idp.example.com", "sub":"mailto:mike@example.com", "aud":"https://jwt-rp.example.net", "nbf":1300815780, "exp":1300819380, "http://claims.example.com/member":true}Jones, et al. Expires May 16, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft OAuth JWT Assertion Profiles November 2014 The following example JSON object, used as the header of a JWT, declares that the JWT is signed with the ECDSA P-256 SHA-256 algorithm. {"alg":"ES256"} To present the JWT with the claims and header shown in the previous example as part of an access token request, for example, the client might make the following HTTPS request (with extra line breaks for display purposes only): POST /token.oauth2 HTTP/1.1 Host: authz.example.net Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded grant_type=urn%3Aietf%3Aparams%3Aoauth%3Agrant-type%3Ajwt-bearer &assertion=eyJhbGciOiJFUzI1NiJ9. eyJpc3Mi[...omitted for brevity...]. J9l-ZhwP[...omitted for brevity...]5. Interoperability Considerations Agreement between system entities regarding identifiers, keys, and endpoints is required in order to achieve interoperable deployments of this profile. Specific items that require agreement are as follows: values for the issuer and audience identifiers, the location of the token endpoint, the key used to apply and verify the digital signature or Message Authentication Code over the JWT, one-time use restrictions on the JWT, maximum JWT lifetime allowed, and the specific subject and claim requirements of the JWT. The exchange of such information is explicitly out of scope for this specification. In some cases, additional profiles may be created that constrain or prescribe these values or specify how they are to be exchanged. Examples of such profiles include the OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration Core Protocol [I-D.ietf-oauth-dyn-reg], OpenID Connect Dynamic Client Registration 1.0 [OpenID.Registration], and OpenID Connect Discovery 1.0 [OpenID.Discovery]. The "RS256" algorithm, from [I-D.ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms], is a mandatory to implement JSON Web Signature algorithm for this profile.6. Security Considerations The security considerations described within the Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions], The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework [RFC6749], and the JSON Web Token (JWT) [JWT] specifications are all applicable to this document.Jones, et al. Expires May 16, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft OAuth JWT Assertion Profiles November 2014 The specification does not mandate replay protection for the JWT usage for either the authorization grant or for client authentication. It is an optional feature, which implementations may employ at their own discretion.7. Privacy Considerations A JWT may contain privacy-sensitive information and, to prevent disclosure of such information to unintended parties, should only be transmitted over encrypted channels, such as TLS. In cases where it is desirable to prevent disclosure of certain information to the client, the JWT should be be encrypted to the authorization server. Deployments should determine the minimum amount of information necessary to complete the exchange and include only such claims in the JWT. In some cases, the "sub" (subject) claim can be a value representing an anonymous or pseudonymous user, as described inSection 6.3.1 of the Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions].8. IANA Considerations8.1. Sub-Namespace Registration of urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant- type:jwt-bearer This specification registers the value "grant-type:jwt-bearer" in the IANA urn:ietf:params:oauth registry established in An IETF URN Sub- Namespace for OAuth [RFC6755]. o URN: urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:jwt-bearer o Common Name: JWT Bearer Token Grant Type Profile for OAuth 2.0 o Change controller: IESG o Specification Document: [[this document]]8.2. Sub-Namespace Registration of urn:ietf:params:oauth:client- assertion-type:jwt-bearer This specification registers the value "client-assertion-type:jwt- bearer" in the IANA urn:ietf:params:oauth registry established in An IETF URN Sub-Namespace for OAuth [RFC6755]. o URN: urn:ietf:params:oauth:client-assertion-type:jwt-bearer o Common Name: JWT Bearer Token Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client AuthenticationJones, et al. Expires May 16, 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft OAuth JWT Assertion Profiles November 2014 o Change controller: IESG o Specification Document: [[this document]]9. References9.1. Normative References [I-D.ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms] Jones, M., "JSON Web Algorithms (JWA)",draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms-36 (work in progress), October 2014. [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions] Campbell, B., Mortimore, C., Jones, M., and Y. Goland, "Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants",draft-ietf-oauth-assertions (work in progress), October 2014. [JWT] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token (JWT)",draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token (work in progress), October 2014. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels",BCP 14,RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,RFC3986, January 2005. [RFC6749] Hardt, D., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework",RFC6749, October 2012. [RFC7159] Bray, T., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data Interchange Format",RFC 7159, March 2014.9.2. Informative References [I-D.ietf-oauth-dyn-reg] Richer, J., Jones, M., Bradley, J., Machulak, M., and P. Hunt, "OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration Protocol",draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-20 (work in progress), August 2014. [I-D.ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer] Campbell, B., Mortimore, C., and M. Jones, "SAML 2.0 Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants",draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer (work in progress), November 2014.Jones, et al. Expires May 16, 2015 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft OAuth JWT Assertion Profiles November 2014 [OpenID.Discovery] Sakimura, N., Bradley, J., Jones, M., and E. Jay, "OpenID Connect Discovery 1.0", February 2014. [OpenID.Registration] Sakimura, N., Bradley, J., and M. Jones, "OpenID Connect Dynamic Client Registration 1.0", February 2014. [RFC6755] Campbell, B. and H. Tschofenig, "An IETF URN Sub-Namespace for OAuth",RFC 6755, October 2012.Appendix A. Acknowledgements This profile was derived from SAML 2.0 Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants [I-D.ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer] by Brian Campbell and Chuck Mortimore.Appendix B. Document History [[ to be removed by the RFC editor before publication as an RFC ]]draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-12 o Fix typo perhttp://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg13790.htmldraft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-11 o Changes/suggestions from IESG reviews.draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-10 o Added Privacy Considerations section per AD review discussionhttp://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg13148.html andhttp://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg13144.htmldraft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-09 o Clarified some text around the treatment of subject based on the rough rough consensus from the thread staring athttp://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg12630.htmldraft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-08 o Updated references, including replacing references toRFC 4627 withRFC 7159.Jones, et al. Expires May 16, 2015 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft OAuth JWT Assertion Profiles November 2014draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-07 o Clean up language around subject perhttp://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg12250.html. o As suggested inhttp://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg12251.html stated that "In the absence of an application profile specifying otherwise, compliant applications MUST compare the audience values using the Simple String Comparison method defined inSection 6.2.1 of RFC 3986." o Added one-time use, maximum lifetime, and specific subject and attribute requirements to Interoperability Considerations based onhttp://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg12252.html. o Remove "or its subject confirmation requirements cannot be met" text. o Reword security considerations and mention that replay protection is not mandated based onhttp://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg12259.html. -06 o Stated that issuer and audience values SHOULD be compared using the Simple String Comparison method defined inSection 6.2.1 of RFC 3986 unless otherwise specified by the application. -05 o Changed title from "JSON Web Token (JWT) Bearer Token Profiles for OAuth 2.0" to "JSON Web Token (JWT) Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants" to be more explicit about the scope of the document perhttp://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg11063.html. o Numbered the list of processing rules. o Smallish editorial cleanups to try and improve readability and comprehensibility. o Cleaner split out of the processing rules in cases where they differ for client authentication and authorization grants. o Clarified the parameters that are used/available for authorization grants. o Added Interoperability Considerations section.Jones, et al. Expires May 16, 2015 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft OAuth JWT Assertion Profiles November 2014 o Added more explanatory context to the example inSection 4. -04 o Changed the name of the "prn" claim to "sub" (subject) both to more closely align with SAML name usage and to use a more intuitive name. o Added seriesInfo information to Internet Draft references. -03 o ReferenceRFC 6749 andRFC 6755. -02 o Add more text to intro explaining that an assertion/JWT grant type can be used with or without client authentication/identification and that client assertion/JWT authentication is nothing more than an alternative way for a client to authenticate to the token endpoint o Add examples to Sections2.1 and2.2 o Update references -01 o Tracked specification name changes: "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Protocol" to "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework" and "OAuth 2.0 Assertion Profile" to "Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0". o Merged in changes betweendraft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer-11 anddraft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer-13. All changes were strictly editorial. -00 o Created the initial IETF draft based upondraft-jones-oauth-jwt-bearer-04 with no normative changes.Authors' Addresses Michael B. Jones Microsoft Email: mbj@microsoft.com URI:http://self-issued.info/Jones, et al. Expires May 16, 2015 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft OAuth JWT Assertion Profiles November 2014 Brian Campbell Ping Identity Email: brian.d.campbell@gmail.com Chuck Mortimore Salesforce Email: cmortimore@salesforce.comJones, et al. Expires May 16, 2015 [Page 15]Datatracker
draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-12
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published asRFC 7523.
| Document | Document type | This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published asRFC 7523. | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Select version | |||
| Compare versions | |||
| Authors | Michael B. Jones,Brian Campbell,Chuck Mortimore Email authors | ||
| RFC stream |   | ||
| Intended RFC status | Proposed Standard | ||
| Other formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion |