| OAuth Working Group | M. Jones |
| Internet-Draft | A. Nadalin |
| Intended status: Standards Track | Microsoft |
| Expires: January 24, 2020 | B. Campbell, Ed. |
| Ping Identity | |
| J. Bradley | |
| Yubico | |
| C. Mortimore | |
| Salesforce | |
| July 23, 2019 |
OAuth 2.0 Token Exchange
draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-19
This specification defines a protocol for an HTTP- and JSON- based Security Token Service (STS) by defining how to request and obtain security tokens from OAuth 2.0 authorization servers, including security tokens employing impersonation and delegation.
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 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 at https://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 January 24, 2020.
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://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 in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
A security token is a set of information that facilitates the sharing of identity and security information in heterogeneous environments or across security domains. Examples of security tokens include JSON Web Tokens (JWTs) [JWT] and SAML 2.0 Assertions [OASIS.saml-core-2.0-os]. Security tokens are typically signed to achieve integrity and sometimes also encrypted to achieve confidentiality. Security tokens are also sometimes described as Assertions, such as in [RFC7521].
A Security Token Service (STS) is a service capable of validating security tokens provided to it and issuing new security tokens in response, which enables clients to obtain appropriate access credentials for resources in heterogeneous environments or across security domains. Web Service clients have used WS-Trust as the protocol to interact with an STS for token exchange. While WS-Trust uses XML and SOAP, the trend in modern Web development has been towards RESTful patterns and JSON. The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework and OAuth 2.0 Bearer Tokens have emerged as popular standards for authorizing third-party applications' access to HTTP and RESTful resources. The conventional OAuth 2.0 interaction involves the exchange of some representation of resource owner authorization for an access token, which has proven to be an extremely useful pattern in practice. However, its input and output are somewhat too constrained as is to fully accommodate a security token exchange framework.
This specification defines a protocol extending OAuth 2.0 that enables clients to request and obtain security tokens from authorization servers acting in the role of an STS. Similar to OAuth 2.0, this specification focuses on client developer simplicity and requires only an HTTP client and JSON parser, which are nearly universally available in modern development environments. The STS protocol defined in this specification is not itself RESTful (an STS doesn't lend itself particularly well to a REST approach) but does utilize communication patterns and data formats that should be familiar to developers accustomed to working with RESTful systems.
A new grant type for a token exchange request and the associated specific parameters for such a request to the token endpoint are defined by this specification. A token exchange response is a normal OAuth 2.0 response from the token endpoint with a few additional parameters defined herein to provide information to the client.
The entity that makes the request to exchange tokens is considered the client in the context of the token exchange interaction. However, that does not restrict usage of this profile to traditional OAuth clients. An OAuth resource server, for example, might assume the role of the client during token exchange in order to trade an access token that it received in a protected resource request for a new token that is appropriate to include in a call to a backend service. The new token might be an access token that is more narrowly scoped for the downstream service or it could be an entirely different kind of token.
The scope of this specification is limited to the definition of a basic request-and-response protocol for an STS-style token exchange utilizing OAuth 2.0. Although a few new JWT claims are defined that enable delegation semantics to be expressed, the specific syntax, semantics and security characteristics of the tokens themselves (both those presented to the authorization server and those obtained by the client) are explicitly out of scope and no requirements are placed on the trust model in which an implementation might be deployed. Additional profiles may provide more detailed requirements around the specific nature of the parties and trust involved, such as whether signing and/or encryption of tokens is needed or if proof-of-possession style tokens will be required or issued; however, such details will often be policy decisions made with respect to the specific needs of individual deployments and will be configured or implemented accordingly.
The security tokens obtained may be used in a number of contexts, the specifics of which are also beyond the scope of this specification.
One common use case for an STS (as alluded to in the previous section) is to allow a resource server A to make calls to a backend service C on behalf of the requesting user B. Depending on the local site policy and authorization infrastructure, it may be desirable for A to use its own credentials to access C along with an annotation of some form that A is acting on behalf of B ("delegation"), or for A to be granted a limited access credential to C but that continues to identify B as the authorized entity ("impersonation"). Delegation and impersonation can be useful concepts in other scenarios involving multiple participants as well.
When principal A impersonates principal B, A is given all the rights that B has within some defined rights context and is indistinguishable from B in that context. Thus, when principal A impersonates principal B, then insofar as any entity receiving such a token is concerned, they are actually dealing with B. It is true that some members of the identity system might have awareness that impersonation is going on, but it is not a requirement. For all intents and purposes, when A is impersonating B, A is B within the context of the rights authorized by the token. A's ability to impersonate B could be limited in scope or time, or even with a one-time-use restriction, whether via the contents of the token or an out-of-band mechanism.
Delegation semantics are different than impersonation semantics, though the two are closely related. With delegation semantics, principal A still has its own identity separate from B and it is explicitly understood that while B may have delegated some of its rights to A, any actions taken are being taken by A representing B. In a sense, A is an agent for B.
Delegation and impersonation are not inclusive of all situations. When a principal is acting directly on its own behalf, for example, neither delegation nor impersonation are in play. They are, however, the more common semantics operating for token exchange and, as such, are given more direct treatment in this specification.
Delegation semantics are typically expressed in a token by including information about both the primary subject of the token as well as the actor to whom that subject has delegated some of its rights. Such a token is sometimes referred to as a composite token because it is composed of information about multiple subjects. Typically, in the request, the subject_token represents the identity of the party on behalf of whom the token is being requested while the actor_token represents the identity of the party to whom the access rights of the issued token are being delegated. A composite token issued by the authorization server will contain information about both parties. When and if a composite token is issued is at the discretion of the authorization server and applicable policy and configuration.
The specifics of representing a composite token and even whether or not such a token will be issued depend on the details of the implementation and the kind of token. The representations of composite tokens that are not JWTs are beyond the scope of this specification. The actor_token request parameter, however, does provide a means for providing information about the desired actor and the JWT act claim can provide a representation of a chain of delegation.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
This specification uses the terms "access token type", "authorization server", "client", "client identifier", "resource server", "token endpoint", "token request", and "token response" defined by OAuth 2.0, and the terms "Base64url Encoding", "Claim", and "JWT Claims Set" defined by JSON Web Token (JWT).
A client requests a security token by making a token request to the authorization server's token endpoint using the extension grant type mechanism defined in Section 4.5 of [RFC6749].
Client authentication to the authorization server is done using the normal mechanisms provided by OAuth 2.0. Section 2.3.1 of [RFC6749] defines password-based authentication of the client, however, client authentication is extensible and other mechanisms are possible. For example, [RFC7523] defines client authentication using bearer JSON Web Tokens (JWTs) [JWT]. The supported methods of client authentication and whether or not to allow unauthenticated or unidentified clients are deployment decisions that are at the discretion of the authorization server. Note that omitting client authentication allows for a compromised token to be leveraged via an STS into other tokens by anyone possessing the compromised token. Thus client authentication allows for additional authorization checks by the STS as to which entities are permitted to impersonate or receive delegations from other entities.
The client makes a token exchange request to the token endpoint with an extension grant type using the HTTP POST method. The following parameters are included in the HTTP request entity-body using the application/x-www-form-urlencoded format with a character encoding of UTF-8 as described in Appendix B of RFC6749 [RFC6749].
In processing the request, the authorization server MUST perform the appropriate validation procedures for the indicated token type and, if the actor token is present, also perform the appropriate validation procedures for its indicated token type. The validity criteria and details of any particular token are beyond the scope of this document and are specific to the respective type of token and its content.
In the absence of one-time-use or other semantics specific to the token type, the act of performing a token exchange has no impact on the validity of the subject token or actor token. Furthermore, the exchange is a one-time event and does not create a tight linkage between the input and output tokens, so that (for example) while the expiration time of the output token may be influenced by that of the input token, renewal or extension of the input token is not expected to be reflected in the output token's properties. It may still be appropriate or desirable to propagate token revocation events. However, doing so is not a general property of the STS protocol and would be specific to a particular implementation, token type or deployment.
When requesting a token, the client can indicate the desired target service(s) where it intends to use that token by way of the audience and resource parameters, as well as indicating the desired scope of the requested token using the scope parameter. The semantics of such a request are that the client is asking for a token with the requested scope that is usable at all the requested target services. Effectively, the requested access rights of the token are the cartesian product of all the scopes at all the target services.
An authorization server may be unwilling or unable to fulfill any token request but the likelihood of an unfulfillable request is significantly higher when very broad access rights are being solicited. As such, in the absence of specific knowledge about the relationship of systems in a deployment, clients should exercise discretion in the breadth of the access requested, particularly the number of target services. An authorization server can use the invalid_target error code, defined in Section 2.2.2, to inform a client that it requested access to too many target services simultaneously.
The authorization server responds to a token exchange request with a normal OAuth 2.0 response from the token endpoint, as specified in Section 5 of [RFC6749]. Additional details and explanation are provided in the following subsections.
If the request is valid and meets all policy and other criteria of the authorization server, a successful token response is constructed by adding the following parameters to the entity-body of the HTTP response using the "application/json" media type, as specified by [RFC8259], and an HTTP 200 status code. The parameters are serialized into a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) structure by adding each parameter at the top level. Parameter names and string values are included as JSON strings. Numerical values are included as JSON numbers. The order of parameters does not matter and can vary.
If the request itself is not valid or if either the subject_token or actor_token are invalid for any reason, or are unacceptable based on policy, the authorization server MUST construct an error response, as specified in Section 5.2 of [RFC6749]. The value of the error parameter MUST be the invalid_request error code.
If the authorization server is unwilling or unable to issue a token for any target service indicated by the resource or audience parameters, the invalid_target error code SHOULD be used in the error response.
The authorization server MAY include additional information regarding the reasons for the error using the error_description as discussed in Section 5.2 of [RFC6749].
Other error codes may also be used, as appropriate.
The following example demonstrates a hypothetical token exchange in which an OAuth resource server assumes the role of the client during the exchange. It trades an access token, which it received in a protected resource request, for a new token that it will use to call to a backend service (extra line breaks and indentation in the examples are for display purposes only).
Figure 1 shows the resource server receiving a protected resource request containing an OAuth access token in the Authorization header, as specified in Section 2.1 of [RFC6750].
GET /resource HTTP/1.1 Host: frontend.example.com Authorization: Bearer accVkjcJyb4BWCxGsndESCJQbdFMogUC5PbRDqceLTC
Figure 1: Protected Resource Request
In Figure 2, the resource server assumes the role of client for the token exchange and the access token from the request in Figure 1 is sent to the authorization server using a request as specified in Section 2.1. The value of the subject_token parameter carries the access token and the value of the subject_token_type parameter indicates that it is an OAuth 2.0 access token. The resource server, acting in the role of the client, uses its identifier and secret to authenticate to the authorization server using the HTTP Basic authentication scheme. The resource parameter indicates the location of the backend service, https://backend.example.com/api, where the issued token will be used.
POST /as/token.oauth2 HTTP/1.1 Host: as.example.com Authorization: Basic cnMwODpsb25nLXNlY3VyZS1yYW5kb20tc2VjcmV0 Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded grant_type=urn%3Aietf%3Aparams%3Aoauth%3Agrant-type%3Atoken-exchange &resource=https%3A%2F%2Fbackend.example.com%2Fapi &subject_token=accVkjcJyb4BWCxGsndESCJQbdFMogUC5PbRDqceLTC &subject_token_type= urn%3Aietf%3Aparams%3Aoauth%3Atoken-type%3Aaccess_token
Figure 2: Token Exchange Request
The authorization server validates the client credentials and the subject_token presented in the token exchange request. From the resource parameter, the authorization server is able to determine the appropriate policy to apply to the request and issues a token suitable for use at https://backend.example.com. The access_token parameter of the response shown in Figure 3 contains the new token, which is itself a bearer OAuth access token that is valid for one minute. The token happens to be a JWT; however, its structure and format are opaque to the client so the issued_token_type indicates only that it is an access token.
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/json
Cache-Control: no-cache, no-store
{
"access_token":"eyJhbGciOiJFUzI1NiIsImtpZCI6IjllciJ9.eyJhdWQiOiJo
dHRwczovL2JhY2tlbmQuZXhhbXBsZS5jb20iLCJpc3MiOiJodHRwczovL2FzLmV
4YW1wbGUuY29tIiwiZXhwIjoxNDQxOTE3NTkzLCJpYXQiOjE0NDE5MTc1MzMsIn
N1YiI6ImJkY0BleGFtcGxlLmNvbSIsInNjb3BlIjoiYXBpIn0.40y3ZgQedw6rx
f59WlwHDD9jryFOr0_Wh3CGozQBihNBhnXEQgU85AI9x3KmsPottVMLPIWvmDCM
y5-kdXjwhw",
"issued_token_type":
"urn:ietf:params:oauth:token-type:access_token",
"token_type":"Bearer",
"expires_in":60
}
Figure 3: Token Exchange Response
The resource server can then use the newly acquired access token in making a request to the backend server as illustrated in Figure 4.
GET /api HTTP/1.1
Host: backend.example.com
Authorization: Bearer eyJhbGciOiJFUzI1NiIsImtpZCI6IjllciJ9.eyJhdWQ
iOiJodHRwczovL2JhY2tlbmQuZXhhbXBsZS5jb20iLCJpc3MiOiJodHRwczovL2
FzLmV4YW1wbGUuY29tIiwiZXhwIjoxNDQxOTE3NTkzLCJpYXQiOjE0NDE5MTc1M
zMsInN1YiI6ImJkY0BleGFtcGxlLmNvbSIsInNjb3BlIjoiYXBpIn0.40y3ZgQe
dw6rxf59WlwHDD9jryFOr0_Wh3CGozQBihNBhnXEQgU85AI9x3KmsPottVMLPIW
vmDCMy5-kdXjwhw
Figure 4: Backend Protected Resource Request
Additional examples can be found in Appendix A.
Several parameters in this specification utilize an identifier as the value to describe the token in question. Specifically, they are the requested_token_type, subject_token_type, actor_token_type parameters of the request and the issued_token_type member of the response. Token type identifiers are URIs. Token Exchange can work with both tokens issued by other parties and tokens from the given authorization server. For the former the token type identifier indicates the syntax (e.g., JWT or SAML 2.0) so the authorization server can parse it; for the latter it indicates what the given authorization server issued it for (e.g., access_token or refresh_token).
The following token type identifiers are defined by this specification. Other URIs MAY be used to indicate other token types.
The value urn:ietf:params:oauth:token-type:jwt, which is defined in Section 9 of [JWT], indicates that the token is a JWT.
The distinction between an access token and a JWT is subtle. An access token represents a delegated authorization decision, whereas JWT is a token format. An access token can be formatted as a JWT but doesn't necessarily have to be. And a JWT might well be an access token but not all JWTs are access tokens. The intent of this specification is that urn:ietf:params:oauth:token-type:access_token be an indicator that the token is a typical OAuth access token issued by the authorization server in question, opaque to the client, and usable the same manner as any other access token obtained from that authorization server. (It could well be a JWT, but the client isn't and needn't be aware of that fact.) Whereas, urn:ietf:params:oauth:token-type:jwt is to indicate specifically that a JWT is being requested or sent (perhaps in a cross-domain use-case where the JWT is used as an authorization grant to obtain an access token from a different authorization server as is facilitated by [RFC7523]).
Note that for tokens which are binary in nature, the URI used for conveying them needs to be associated with the semantics of a base64 or other encoding suitable for usage with HTTP and OAuth.
It is useful to have defined mechanisms to express delegation within a token as well as to express authorization to delegate or impersonate. Although the token exchange protocol described herein can be used with any type of token, this section defines claims to express such semantics specifically for JWTs and in an OAuth 2.0 Token Introspection response. Similar definitions for other types of tokens are possible but beyond the scope of this specification.
Note that the claims not established herein but used in examples and descriptions, such as iss, sub, exp, etc., are defined by [JWT].
The act (actor) claim provides a means within a JWT to express that delegation has occurred and identify the acting party to whom authority has been delegated. The act claim value is a JSON object and members in the JSON object are claims that identify the actor. The claims that make up the act claim identify and possibly provide additional information about the actor. For example, the combination of the two claims iss and sub might be necessary to uniquely identify an actor.
However, claims within the act claim pertain only to the identity of the actor and are not relevant to the validity of the containing JWT in the same manner as the top-level claims. Consequently, non-identity claims (e.g., exp, nbf, and aud) are not meaningful when used within an act claim, and therefore are not used.
Figure 5 illustrates the act (actor) claim within a JWT Claims Set. The claims of the token itself are about user@example.com while the act claim indicates that admin@example.com is the current actor.
{
"aud":"https://consumer.example.com",
"iss":"https://issuer.example.com",
"exp":1443904177,
"nbf":1443904077,
"sub":"user@example.com",
"act":
{
"sub":"admin@example.com"
}
}
Figure 5: Actor Claim
A chain of delegation can be expressed by nesting one act claim within another. The outermost act claim represents the current actor while nested act claims represent prior actors. The least recent actor is the most deeply nested. The nested act claims serve as a history trail that connects the initial request and subject through the various delegation steps undertaken before reaching the current actor. In this sense, the current actor is considered to include the entire authorization/delegation history, leading naturally to the nested structure described here.
For the purpose of applying access control policy, the consumer of a token MUST only consider the token's top-level claims and the party identified as the current actor by the act claim. Prior actors identified by any nested act claims are informational only and are not to be considered in access control decisions.
The following example in Figure 6 illustrates nested act (actor) claims within a JWT Claims Set. The claims of the token itself are about user@example.com while the act claim indicates that the system https://service16.example.com is the current actor and https://service77.example.com was a prior actor. Such a token might come about as the result of service16 receiving a token in a call from service77 and exchanging it for a token suitable to call service26 while the authorization server notes the situation in the newly issued token.
{
"aud":"https://service26.example.com",
"iss":"https://issuer.example.com",
"exp":1443904100,
"nbf":1443904000,
"sub":"user@example.com",
"act":
{
"sub":"https://service16.example.com",
"act":
{
"sub":"https://service77.example.com"
}
}
}
Figure 6: Nested Actor Claim
When included as a top-level member of an OAuth token introspection response, act has the same semantics and format as the claim of the same name.
The value of the scope claim is a JSON string containing a space-separated list of scopes associated with the token, in the format described in Section 3.3 of [RFC6749].
Figure 7 illustrates the scope claim within a JWT Claims Set.
{
"aud":"https://consumer.example.com",
"iss":"https://issuer.example.com",
"exp":1443904177,
"nbf":1443904077,
"sub":"dgaf4mvfs75Fci_FL3heQA",
"scope":"email profile phone address"
}
Figure 7: Scopes Claim
OAuth 2.0 Token Introspection already defines the scope parameter to convey the scopes associated with the token.
The client_id claim carries the client identifier of the OAuth 2.0 client that requested the token.
The following example in Figure 8 illustrates the client_id claim within a JWT Claims Set indicating an OAuth 2.0 client with "s6BhdRkqt3" as its identifier.
{
"aud":"https://consumer.example.com",
"iss":"https://issuer.example.com",
"exp":1443904177,
"sub":"user@example.com",
"client_id":"s6BhdRkqt3"
}
Figure 8: Client Identifier Claim
OAuth 2.0 Token Introspection already defines the client_id parameter as the client identifier for the OAuth 2.0 client that requested the token.
The may_act claim makes a statement that one party is authorized to become the actor and act on behalf of another party. The claim might be used, for example, when a subject_token is presented to the token endpoint in a token exchange request and may_act claim in the subject token can be used by the authorization server to determine whether the client (or party identified in the actor_token) is authorized to engage in the requested delegation or impersonation. The claim value is a JSON object and members in the JSON object are claims that identify the party that is asserted as being eligible to act for the party identified by the JWT containing the claim. The claims that make up the may_act claim identify and possibly provide additional information about the authorized actor. For example, the combination of the two claims iss and sub are sometimes necessary to uniquely identify an authorized actor, while the email claim might be used to provide additional useful information about that party.
However, claims within the may_act claim pertain only to the identity of that party and are not relevant to the validity of the containing JWT in the same manner as top-level claims. Consequently, claims such as exp, nbf, and aud are not meaningful when used within a may_act claim, and therefore are not used.
Figure 9 illustrates the may_act claim within a JWT Claims Set. The claims of the token itself are about user@example.com while the may_act claim indicates that admin@example.com is authorized to act on behalf of user@example.com.
{
"aud":"https://consumer.example.com",
"iss":"https://issuer.example.com",
"exp":1443904177,
"nbf":1443904077,
"sub":"user@example.com",
"may_act":
{
"sub":"admin@example.com"
}
}
Figure 9: Authorized Actor Claim
When included as a top-level member of an OAuth token introspection response, may_act has the same semantics and format as the claim of the same name.
Much of the guidance from Section 10 of [RFC6749], the Security Considerations in The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework, is also applicable here. Furthermore, [RFC6819] provides additional security considerations for OAuth and [I-D.ietf-oauth-security-topics] has updated security guidance based on deployment experience and new threats that have emerged since OAuth 2.0 was originally published.
All of the normal security issues that are discussed in [JWT], especially in relationship to comparing URIs and dealing with unrecognized values, also apply here.
In addition, both delegation and impersonation introduce unique security issues. Any time one principal is delegated the rights of another principal, the potential for abuse is a concern. The use of the scope claim (in addition to other typical constraints such as a limited token lifetime) is suggested to mitigate potential for such abuse, as it restricts the contexts in which the delegated rights can be exercised.
Tokens employed in the context of the functionality described herein may contain privacy-sensitive information and, to prevent disclosure of such information to unintended parties, MUST only be transmitted over encrypted channels, such as Transport Layer Security (TLS). In cases where it is desirable to prevent disclosure of certain information to the client, the token MUST be encrypted to its intended recipient. Deployments SHOULD determine the minimally necessary amount of data and only include such information in issued tokens. In some cases, data minimization may include representing only an anonymous or pseudonymous user.
This specification registers the following values in the IANA "OAuth URI" registry [IANA.OAuth.Parameters] established by [RFC6755].
This specification registers the following values in the IANA "OAuth Parameters" registry [IANA.OAuth.Parameters] established by [RFC6749].
This specification registers the following access token type in the IANA "OAuth Access Token Types" registry [IANA.OAuth.Parameters] established by [RFC6749].
This specification registers the following Claims in the IANA "JSON Web Token Claims" registry [IANA.JWT.Claims] established by [JWT].
This specification registers the following values in the IANA "OAuth Token Introspection Response" registry [IANA.OAuth.Parameters] established by [RFC7662].
This specification registers the following values in the IANA "OAuth Extensions Error" registry [IANA.OAuth.Parameters] established by [RFC6749].
| [IANA.JWT.Claims] | IANA, "JSON Web Token Claims" |
| [IANA.OAuth.Parameters] | IANA, "OAuth Parameters" |
| [JWT] | Jones, M., Bradley, J. and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token (JWT)", RFC 7519, DOI 10.17487/RFC7519, May 2015. |
| [RFC2119] | Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997. |
| [RFC3986] | Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R. and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005. |
| [RFC6749] | Hardt, D., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework", RFC 6749, DOI 10.17487/RFC6749, October 2012. |
| [RFC7662] | Richer, J., "OAuth 2.0 Token Introspection", RFC 7662, DOI 10.17487/RFC7662, October 2015. |
| [RFC8174] | Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017. |
| [RFC8259] | Bray, T., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259, DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, December 2017. |
Two example token exchanges are provided in the following sections illustrating impersonation and delegation, respectively (with extra line breaks and indentation for display purposes only).
In the following token exchange request, a client is requesting a token with impersonation semantics (with only a subject_token and no actor_token, delegation is impossible). The client tells the authorization server that it needs a token for use at the target service with the logical name urn:example:cooperation-context.
POST /as/token.oauth2 HTTP/1.1 Host: as.example.com Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded grant_type=urn%3Aietf%3Aparams%3Aoauth%3Agrant-type%3Atoken-exchange &audience=urn%3Aexample%3Acooperation-context &subject_token=eyJhbGciOiJFUzI1NiIsImtpZCI6IjE2In0.eyJhdWQiOiJodHRwc zovL2FzLmV4YW1wbGUuY29tIiwiaXNzIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9vcmlnaW5hbC1pc3N1ZXI uZXhhbXBsZS5uZXQiLCJleHAiOjE0NDE5MTA2MDAsIm5iZiI6MTQ0MTkwOTAwMCwic 3ViIjoiYmRjQGV4YW1wbGUubmV0Iiwic2NvcGUiOiJvcmRlcnMgcHJvZmlsZSBoaXN 0b3J5In0.PRBg-jXn4cJuj1gmYXFiGkZzRuzbXZ_sDxdE98ddW44ufsbWLKd3JJ1VZ hF64pbTtfjy4VXFVBDaQpKjn5JzAw &subject_token_type=urn%3Aietf%3Aparams%3Aoauth%3Atoken-type%3Ajwt
Figure 10: Token Exchange Request
The subject_token in the prior request is a JWT and the decoded JWT Claims Set is shown here. The JWT is intended for consumption by the authorization server within a specific time window. The subject of the JWT (bdc@example.net) is the party on behalf of whom the new token is being requested.
{
"aud":"https://as.example.com",
"iss":"https://original-issuer.example.net",
"exp":1441910600,
"nbf":1441909000,
"sub":"bdc@example.net",
"scope":"orders profile history"
}
Figure 11: Subject Token Claims
The access_token parameter of the token exchange response shown below contains the new token that the client requested. The other parameters of the response indicate that the token is a bearer access token that expires in an hour.
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/json
Cache-Control: no-cache, no-store
{
"access_token":"eyJhbGciOiJFUzI1NiIsImtpZCI6IjcyIn0.eyJhdWQiOiJ1cm4
6ZXhhbXBsZTpjb29wZXJhdGlvbi1jb250ZXh0IiwiaXNzIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9hcy5l
eGFtcGxlLmNvbSIsImV4cCI6MTQ0MTkxMzYxMCwic3ViIjoiYmRjQGV4YW1wbGUub
mV0Iiwic2NvcGUiOiJvcmRlcnMgcHJvZmlsZSBoaXN0b3J5In0.rMdWpSGNACTvnF
uOL74sYZ6MVuld2Z2WkGLmQeR9ztj6w2OXraQlkJmGjyiCq24kcB7AI2VqVxl3wSW
nVKh85A",
"issued_token_type":
"urn:ietf:params:oauth:token-type:access_token",
"token_type":"Bearer",
"expires_in":3600
}
Figure 12: Token Exchange Response
The decoded JWT Claims Set of the issued token is shown below. The new JWT is issued by the authorization server and intended for consumption by a system entity known by the logical name urn:example:cooperation-context any time before its expiration. The subject (sub) of the JWT is the same as the subject the token used to make the request, which effectively enables the client to impersonate that subject at the system entity known by the logical name of urn:example:cooperation-context by using the token.
{
"aud":"urn:example:cooperation-context",
"iss":"https://as.example.com",
"exp":1441913610,
"sub":"bdc@example.net",
"scope":"orders profile history"
}
Figure 13: Issued Token Claims
In the following token exchange request, a client is requesting a token and providing both a subject_token and an actor_token. The client tells the authorization server that it needs a token for use at the target service with the logical name urn:example:cooperation-context. Policy at the authorization server dictates that the issued token be a composite.
POST /as/token.oauth2 HTTP/1.1 Host: as.example.com Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded grant_type=urn%3Aietf%3Aparams%3Aoauth%3Agrant-type%3Atoken-exchange &audience=urn%3Aexample%3Acooperation-context &subject_token=eyJhbGciOiJFUzI1NiIsImtpZCI6IjE2In0.eyJhdWQiOiJodHRwc zovL2FzLmV4YW1wbGUuY29tIiwiaXNzIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9vcmlnaW5hbC1pc3N1ZXI uZXhhbXBsZS5uZXQiLCJleHAiOjE0NDE5MTAwNjAsInNjb3BlIjoic3RhdHVzIGZlZ WQiLCJzdWIiOiJ1c2VyQGV4YW1wbGUubmV0IiwibWF5X2FjdCI6eyJzdWIiOiJhZG1 pbkBleGFtcGxlLm5ldCJ9fQ.4rPRSWihQbpMIgAmAoqaJojAxj-p2X8_fAtAGTXrvM xU-eEZHnXqY0_AOZgLdxw5DyLzua8H_I10MCcckF-Q_g &subject_token_type=urn%3Aietf%3Aparams%3Aoauth%3Atoken-type%3Ajwt &actor_token=eyJhbGciOiJFUzI1NiIsImtpZCI6IjE2In0.eyJhdWQiOiJodHRwczo vL2FzLmV4YW1wbGUuY29tIiwiaXNzIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9vcmlnaW5hbC1pc3N1ZXIuZ XhhbXBsZS5uZXQiLCJleHAiOjE0NDE5MTAwNjAsInN1YiI6ImFkbWluQGV4YW1wbGU ubmV0In0.7YQ-3zPfhUvzje5oqw8COCvN5uP6NsKik9CVV6cAOf4QKgM-tKfiOwcgZ oUuDL2tEs6tqPlcBlMjiSzEjm3yBg &actor_token_type=urn%3Aietf%3Aparams%3Aoauth%3Atoken-type%3Ajwt
Figure 14: Token Exchange Request
The subject_token in the prior request is a JWT and the decoded JWT Claims Set is shown here. The JWT is intended for consumption by the authorization server before a specific expiration time. The subject of the JWT (user@example.net) is the party on behalf of whom the new token is being requested.
{
"aud":"https://as.example.com",
"iss":"https://original-issuer.example.net",
"exp":1441910060,
"scope":"status feed",
"sub":"user@example.net",
"may_act":
{
"sub":"admin@example.net"
}
}
Figure 15: Subject Token Claims
The actor_token in the prior request is a JWT and the decoded JWT Claims Set is shown here. This JWT is also intended for consumption by the authorization server before a specific expiration time. The subject of the JWT (admin@example.net) is the actor that will wield the security token being requested.
{
"aud":"https://as.example.com",
"iss":"https://original-issuer.example.net",
"exp":1441910060,
"sub":"admin@example.net"
}
Figure 16: Actor Token Claims
The access_token parameter of the token exchange response shown below contains the new token that the client requested. The other parameters of the response indicate that the token is a JWT that expires in an hour and that the access token type is not applicable since the issued token is not an access token.
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/json
Cache-Control: no-cache, no-store
{
"access_token":"eyJhbGciOiJFUzI1NiIsImtpZCI6IjcyIn0.eyJhdWQiOiJ1cm4
6ZXhhbXBsZTpjb29wZXJhdGlvbi1jb250ZXh0IiwiaXNzIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9hcy5l
eGFtcGxlLmNvbSIsImV4cCI6MTQ0MTkxMzYxMCwic2NvcGUiOiJzdGF0dXMgZmVlZ
CIsInN1YiI6InVzZXJAZXhhbXBsZS5uZXQiLCJhY3QiOnsic3ViIjoiYWRtaW5AZX
hhbXBsZS5uZXQifX0.3paKl9UySKYB5ng6_cUtQ2qlO8Rc_y7Mea7IwEXTcYbNdwG
9-G1EKCFe5fW3H0hwX-MSZ49Wpcb1SiAZaOQBtw",
"issued_token_type":"urn:ietf:params:oauth:token-type:jwt",
"token_type":"N_A",
"expires_in":3600
}
Figure 17: Token Exchange Response
The decoded JWT Claims Set of the issued token is shown below. The new JWT is issued by the authorization server and intended for consumption by a system entity known by the logical name urn:example:cooperation-context any time before its expiration. The subject (sub) of the JWT is the same as the subject of the subject_token used to make the request. The actor (act) of the JWT is the same as the subject of the actor_token used to make the request. This indicates delegation and identifies admin@example.net as the current actor to whom authority has been delegated to act on behalf of user@example.net.
{
"aud":"urn:example:cooperation-context",
"iss":"https://as.example.com",
"exp":1441913610,
"scope":"status feed",
"sub":"user@example.net",
"act":
{
"sub":"admin@example.net"
}
}
Figure 18: Issued Token Claims
This specification was developed within the OAuth Working Group, which includes dozens of active and dedicated participants. It was produced under the chairmanship of Hannes Tschofenig, Derek Atkins, and Rifaat Shekh-Yusef with Kathleen Moriarty, Stephen Farrell, Eric Rescorla, Roman Danyliw, and Benjamin Kaduk serving as Security Area Directors. The following individuals contributed ideas, feedback, and wording to this specification:
Caleb Baker, Vittorio Bertocci, Mike Brown, Thomas Broyer, Roman Danyliw, William Denniss, Vladimir Dzhuvinov, Eric Fazendin, Phil Hunt, Benjamin Kaduk, Jason Keglovitz, Torsten Lodderstedt, Barry Leiba, Adam Lewis, James Manger, Nov Matake, Matt Miller, Hilarie Orman, Matthew Perry, Eric Rescorla, Justin Richer, Adam Roach, Rifaat Shekh-Yusef, Scott Tomilson, and Hannes Tschofenig.
[[ to be removed by the RFC Editor before publication as an RFC ]]
-19
-18
-17
-16
-15
-14
-13
-12
-11
-10
-09
-08
-07
-06
-05
-04
-03
-02
-01
-00