Archive for the 'Claims' Category

February 27, 2018
OAuth Authorization Server Metadata spec addressing IESG feedback

OAuth logoThe OAuth Authorization Server Metadata specification has been updated to address feedback received from IESG members. Changes were:

  • Revised the transformation between the issuer identifier and the authorization server metadata location to conform to BCP 190, as suggested by Adam Roach.
  • Defined the characters allowed in registered metadata names and values, as suggested by Alexey Melnikov.
  • Changed to using the RFC 8174 boilerplate instead of the RFC 2119 boilerplate, as suggested by Ben Campbell.
  • Acknowledged additional reviewers.

The specification is available at:

An HTML-formatted version is also available at:

February 2, 2018
CBOR Web Token (CWT) draft addressing shepherd review comments

IETF logoThe CBOR Web Token (CWT) specification has been updated to address the shepherd comments by Benjamin Kaduk. Changes were:

  • Updated the RFC 5226 reference to RFC 8126.
  • Made the IANA registration criteria consistent across sections.
  • Stated that registrations for the limited set of values between -256 and 255 and strings of length 1 are to be restricted to claims with general applicability.
  • Changed the “Reference” field name to “Description of Semantics” in the CBOR Tag registration request.
  • Asked the RFC Editor whether it is possible to preserve the non-ASCII spellings of the names Erik Wahlström and Göran Selander in the final specification.

Thanks to Ben for his careful review of the specification!

The specification is available at:

An HTML-formatted version is also available at:

February 2, 2018
Security Event Token (SET) spec simplifying claims usage

IETF logoThe Security Event Token (SET) specification has been updated to simplify the definitions and usage of the “iat” (issued at) and “toe” (time of event) claims. The full set of changes made was:

  • Simplified the definitions of the “iat” and “toe” claims in ways suggested by Annabelle Backman.
  • Added privacy considerations text suggested by Annabelle Backman.
  • Updated the RISC event example, courtesy of Marius Scurtescu.
  • Reordered the claim definitions to place the required claims first.
  • Changed to using the RFC 8174 boilerplate instead of the RFC 2119 boilerplate.

Thanks to Annabelle Backman, Marius Scurtescu, Phil Hunt, and Dick Hardt for the discussions that led to these simplifications.

The specification is available at:

An HTML-formatted version is also available at:

January 21, 2018
CBOR Web Token (CWT) draft correcting an example

IETF logoA new CBOR Web Token (CWT) draft has been published that applies a correction to an example. The full list of changes is:

  • Corrected the “iv” value in the signed and encrypted CWT example.
  • Mention CoAP in the application/cwt media type registration.
  • Changed references of the form “Section 4.1.1 of JWT <xref target="RFC7519"/>” to “Section 4.1.1 of <xref target="RFC7519"/>” so that rfcmarkup will generate correct external section reference links.
  • Updated Acknowledgements.

Thanks to Samuel Erdtman for validating all the examples once more and finding the issue with the signed and encrypted example. Thanks to Benjamin Kaduk for pointing out additional improvements that could be applied from the second WGLC comments.

The specification is available at:

An HTML-formatted version is also available at:

January 20, 2018
Security Event Token (SET) spec incorporating clarifications and a RISC example

IETF logoA new version of the Security Event Token (SET) specification has been published that incorporates clarifications suggested by working group members in discussions since IETF 100. Changes were:

  • Clarified that all “events” values must represent aspects of the same state change that occurred to the subject — not an aggregation of unrelated events about the subject.
  • Removed ambiguities about the roles of multiple “events” values and the responsibilities of profiling specifications for defining how and when they are used.
  • Corrected places where the term JWT was used when what was actually being discussed was the JWT Claims Set.
  • Addressed terminology inconsistencies. In particular, standardized on using the term “issuer” to align with JWT terminology and the “iss” claim. Previously the term “transmitter” was sometimes used and “issuer” was sometimes used. Likewise, standardized on using the term “recipient” instead of “receiver” for the same reasons.
  • Added a RISC event example, courtesy of Marius Scurtescu.
  • Applied wording clarifications suggested by Annabelle Backman and Yaron Sheffer.
  • Applied numerous grammar, syntax, and formatting corrections.

No changes to the semantics of the specification were made.

The specification is available at:

An HTML-formatted version is also available at:

January 19, 2018
OAuth Token Exchange spec addressing Area Director feedback

OAuth logoA new draft of the OAuth 2.0 Token Exchange specification has been published that addresses feedback from Security Area Director Eric Rescorla. The acknowledgements were also updated. Thanks to Brian Campbell for doing the editing for this version.

The specification is available at:

An HTML-formatted version is also available at:

December 17, 2017
CBOR Web Token (CWT) addressing 2nd WGLC comments

IETF logoA new CBOR Web Token (CWT) draft has been published that addresses comments received during the second working group last call. Thanks to Hannes Tschofenig, Esko Dijk, Ludwig Seitz, Carsten Bormann, and Benjamin Kaduk for their feedback. All changes made were clarifications or formatting improvements.

The specification is available at:

An HTML-formatted version is also available at:

November 30, 2017
OAuth Token Exchange spec adding URIs for SAML assertions

OAuth logoA new draft of the OAuth 2.0 Token Exchange specification has been published that adds token type URIs for SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 assertions. They were added in response to actual developer use cases. These parallel the existing token type URI for JWT tokens.

The specification is available at:

An HTML-formatted version is also available at:

November 15, 2017
OAuth Authorization Server Metadata spec incorporating IETF last call feedback

OAuth logoThe OAuth Authorization Server Metadata specification has been updated to incorporate feedback received during IETF last call. Thanks to Shwetha Bhandari, Brian Carpenter, Donald Eastlake, Dick Hardt, and Mark Nottingham for their reviews. See the Document History appendix for clarifications applied. No normative changes were made.

The specification is available at:

An HTML-formatted version is also available at:

October 30, 2017
Proof-of-Possession Key Semantics for CBOR Web Tokens (CWTs) spec using CBOR diagnostic notation

IETF logoDraft -01 of the Proof-of-Possession Key Semantics for CBOR Web Tokens (CWTs) specification updates the examples to use CBOR diagnostic notation, thanks to Ludwig Seitz. A table summarizing the “cnf” names, keys, and value types was added, thanks to Samuel Erdtman. Finally, some of Jim Schaad’s feedback on -00 was addressed (with more to be addressed by the opening of IETF 100 in Singapore).

The specification is available at:

An HTML-formatted version is also available at:

October 26, 2017
CBOR Web Token (CWT) specification adding CBOR_Key values and Key IDs to examples

IETF logoA new CBOR Web Token (CWT) draft has been published that adds CBOR_Key values and Key IDs to examples. Thanks to Samuel Erdtman for working on the examples, as always. Thanks to Giridhar Mandyam for validating the examples!

I believe that it’s time to request publication, as there remain no known issues with the specification.

The specification is available at:

An HTML-formatted version is also available at:

September 12, 2017
Initial Working Group Draft of Proof-of-Possession Key Semantics for CBOR Web Tokens (CWTs)

IETF logoThe initial working group draft of the Proof-of-Possession Key Semantics for CBOR Web Tokens (CWTs) specification has been posted. It contains the same normative content as draft-jones-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-01. The abstract of the specification is:

This specification describes how to declare in a CBOR Web Token (CWT) that the presenter of the CWT possesses a particular proof-of-possession key. Being able to prove possession of a key is also sometimes described as the presenter being a holder-of-key. This specification provides equivalent functionality to “Proof-of-Possession Key Semantics for JSON Web Tokens (JWTs)” (RFC 7800), but using CBOR and CWTs rather than JSON and JWTs.

I look forward to working with my co-authors and the working group to hopefully complete this quickly!

The specification is available at:

An HTML-formatted version is also available at:

September 7, 2017
OAuth Authorization Server Metadata spec incorporating Area Director feedback

OAuth logoThe OAuth Authorization Server Metadata specification has been updated to incorporate feedback from Security Area Director Eric Rescorla. Thanks to EKR for his useful review. A number of defaults and restrictions are now better specified.

The specification is available at:

An HTML-formatted version is also available at:

August 16, 2017
CBOR Web Token (CWT) specification addressing all known issues

IETF logoA new CBOR Web Token (CWT) draft has been published that updates the diagnostic notation for embedded objects in the examples. Thanks to Samuel Erdtman for making these updates. Thanks to Carsten Bormann for reviewing the examples!

This addresses all known issues with the specification. I believe that it is now time to request publication.

The specification is available at:

An HTML-formatted version is also available at:

July 27, 2017
Initial working group draft of JSON Web Token Best Current Practices

OAuth logoI’m happy to announce that the OAuth working group adopted the JSON Web Token Best Current Practices (JWT BCP) draft that Yaron Sheffer, Dick Hardt, and I had worked on, following discussions at IETF 99 in Prague and on the working group mailing list.

The specification is available at:

An HTML-formatted version is also available at:

July 4, 2017
JSON Web Token Best Current Practices draft describing Explicit Typing

OAuth logoThe JWT BCP draft has been updated to describe the use of explicit typing of JWTs as one of the ways to prevent confusion among different kinds of JWTs. This is accomplished by including an explicit type for the JWT in the “typ” header parameter. For instance, the Security Event Token (SET) specification now uses the “application/secevent+jwt” content type to explicitly type SETs.

The specification is available at:

An HTML-formatted version is also available at:

June 30, 2017
Proof-of-Possession Key Semantics for CBOR Web Tokens (CWTs) spec addressing review comments

IETF logoThe Proof-of-Possession Key Semantics for CBOR Web Tokens (CWTs) specification has been updated to address comments received since its initial publication. Changes were:

  • Tracked CBOR Web Token (CWT) Claims Registry updates.
  • Addressed review comments by Michael Richardson and Jim Schaad.
  • Added co-authors Ludwig Seitz, Göran Selander, Erik Wahlström, Samuel Erdtman, and Hannes Tschofenig.

Thanks for the feedback received to date!

The specification is available at:

An HTML-formatted version is also available at:

June 30, 2017
Security Event Token (SET) specification preventing token confusion

IETF logoA new version of the Security Event Token (SET) specification has been published containing measures that prevent any possibility of confusion between ID Tokens and SETs. Preventing confusion between SETs, access tokens, and other kinds of JWTs is also covered. Changes were:

  • Added the Requirements for SET Profiles section.
  • Expanded the Security Considerations section to describe how to prevent confusion of SETs with ID Tokens, access tokens, and other kinds of JWTs.
  • Registered the application/secevent+jwt media type and defined how to use it for explicit typing of SETs.
  • Clarified the misleading statement that used to say that a SET conveys a single security event.
  • Added a note explicitly acknowledging that some SET profiles may choose to convey event subject information in the event payload.
  • Corrected an encoded claims set example.
  • Applied grammar corrections.

This draft is intended to provide solutions to the issues that had been discussed in IETF 98 in Chicago and subsequently on the working group mailing list. Thanks for all the great discussions that informed this draft!

The specification is available at:

An HTML-formatted version is also available at:

June 29, 2017
CBOR Web Token (CWT) specification addressing editorial comments

IETF logoA new CBOR Web Token (CWT) draft has been published that addresses editorial comments made by Carsten Bormann and Jim Schaad. All changes were editorial in nature.

The specification is available at:

An HTML-formatted version is also available at:

June 16, 2017
Authentication Method Reference Values is now RFC 8176

IETF logoThe Authentication Method Reference Values specification is now RFC 8176. The abstract describes the specification as:

The amr (Authentication Methods References) claim is defined and registered in the IANA “JSON Web Token Claims” registry, but no standard Authentication Method Reference values are currently defined. This specification establishes a registry for Authentication Method Reference values and defines an initial set of Authentication Method Reference values.

The specification defines and registers some Authentication Method Reference values such as the following, which are already in use by some Google and Microsoft products and OpenID specifications:

  • face” – Facial recognition
  • fpt” – Fingerprint
  • hwk” – Proof-of-possession of a hardware-secured key
  • otp” – One-time password
  • pin” – Personal Identification Number
  • pwd” – Password
  • swk” – Proof-of-possession of a software-secured key
  • sms” – Confirmation using SMS
  • user” – User presence test
  • wia” – Windows Integrated Authentication

See https://www.iana.org/assignments/authentication-method-reference-values/ for the full list of registered values.

Thanks to Caleb Baker, Phil Hunt, Tony Nadalin, and William Denniss, all of whom substantially contributed to the specification. Thanks also to the OAuth working group members, chairs, area directors, and other IETF members who helped refine the specification.

« Prev - Next »