JSON Web Token (JWT)
draft-jones-json-web-token-08

Abstract

JSON Web Token (JWT) is a means of representing claims to be transferred between two parties. The claims in a JWT are encoded as a JSON object that is digitally signed or HMACed using JSON Web Signature (JWS) and/or encrypted using JSON Web Encryption (JWE).

The suggested pronunciation of JWT is the same as the English word "jot".

Requirements Language

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 in RFC 2119 (Bradner, S., “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels,” March 1997.) [RFC2119].

Status of this Memo

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 http://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 September 13, 2012.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2012 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 (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 in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

1.  Introduction
2.  Terminology
3.  JSON Web Token (JWT) Overview
    3.1.  Example JWT
4.  JWT Claims
    4.1.  Reserved Claim Names
    4.2.  Public Claim Names
    4.3.  Private Claim Names
5.  JWT Header
6.  Plaintext JWTs
    6.1.  Example Plaintext JWT
7.  Rules for Creating and Validating a JWT
8.  Cryptographic Algorithms
9.  IANA Considerations
    9.1.  JSON Web Token Claims Registry
    9.2.  application/jwt MIME Media Type Registration
10.  Security Considerations
    10.1.  Unicode Comparison Security Issues
11.  Open Issues and Things To Be Done (TBD)
12.  References
    12.1.  Normative References
    12.2.  Informative References
Appendix A.  Relationship of JWTs to SAML Tokens
Appendix B.  Relationship of JWTs to Simple Web Tokens (SWTs)
Appendix C.  Acknowledgements
Appendix D.  Document History
§  Authors' Addresses

1.  Introduction

JSON Web Token (JWT) is a compact token format intended for space constrained environments such as HTTP Authorization headers and URI query parameters. JWTs encode claims to be transmitted as a JSON object (as defined in RFC 4627 (Crockford, D., “The application/json Media Type for JavaScript Object Notation (JSON),” July 2006.) [RFC4627]) that is base64url encoded and digitally signed or HMACed and/or encrypted. Signing and HMACing is performed using JSON Web Signature (JWS) [JWS] (Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, “JSON Web Signature (JWS),” March 2012.). Encryption is performed using JSON Web Encryption (JWE) [JWE] (Jones, M., Rescorla, E., and J. Hildebrand, “JSON Web Encryption (JWE),” March 2012.).

The suggested pronunciation of JWT is the same as the English word "jot".

2.  Terminology

JSON Web Token (JWT)

A string consisting of multiple parts, the first being the Encoded JWT Header, plus additional parts depending upon the contents of the header, with the parts being separated by period ('.') characters, and each part containing base64url encoded content.

JWT Header

A string representing a JSON object that describes the cryptographic operations applied to the JWT. When the JWT is digitally signed or HMACed, the JWT Header is a JWS Header. When the JWT is encrypted, the JWT Header is a JWE Header.

Header Parameter Names

The names of the members within the JWT Header.

Header Parameter Values

The values of the members within the JWT Header.

JWT Claims Set

A string representing a JSON object that contains the claims conveyed by the JWT. When the JWT is digitally signed or HMACed, the bytes of the UTF-8 representation of the JWT Claims Set are base64url encoded to create the Encoded JWS Payload. When the JWT is encrypted, the bytes of the UTF-8 representation of the JWT Claims Set are used as the JWE Plaintext.

Claim Names

The names of the members of the JSON object represented by the JWT Claims Set.

Claim Values

The values of the members of the JSON object represented by the JWT Claims Set.

Encoded JWT Header

Base64url encoding of the bytes of the UTF-8 RFC 3629 (Yergeau, F., “UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646,” November 2003.) [RFC3629] representation of the JWT Header.

Base64url Encoding

For the purposes of this specification, this term always refers to the URL- and filename-safe Base64 encoding described in RFC 4648 (Josefsson, S., “The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data Encodings,” October 2006.) [RFC4648], Section 5, with the (non URL-safe) '=' padding characters omitted, as permitted by Section 3.2. (See Appendix C of [JWS] (Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, “JSON Web Signature (JWS),” March 2012.) for notes on implementing base64url encoding without padding.)

3.  JSON Web Token (JWT) Overview

JWTs represent a set of claims as a JSON object that is base64url encoded and digitally signed or HMACed and/or encrypted. The JWT Claims Set represents this JSON object. As per RFC 4627 (Crockford, D., “The application/json Media Type for JavaScript Object Notation (JSON),” July 2006.) [RFC4627] Section 2.2, the JSON object consists of zero or more name/value pairs (or members), where the names are strings and the values are arbitrary JSON values. These members are the claims represented by the JWT.

The member names within the JWT Claims Set are referred to as Claim Names. The corresponding values are referred to as Claim Values.

The bytes of the UTF-8 representation of the JWT Claims Set are digitally signed or HMACed in the manner described in JSON Web Signature (JWS) [JWS] (Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, “JSON Web Signature (JWS),” March 2012.) and/or encrypted in the manner described in JSON Web Encryption (JWE) [JWE] (Jones, M., Rescorla, E., and J. Hildebrand, “JSON Web Encryption (JWE),” March 2012.).

The contents of the JWT Header describe the cryptographic operations applied to the JWT Claims Set. If the JWT Header is a JWS Header, the claims are digitally signed or HMACed. If the JWT Header is a JWE Header, the claims are encrypted.

A JWT is represented as a JWS or JWE. The number of parts is dependent upon the representation of the resulting JWS or JWE.

3.1.  Example JWT

The following example JWT Header declares that the encoded object is a JSON Web Token (JWT) and the JWT is HMACed using the HMAC SHA-256 algorithm:

{"typ":"JWT",
 "alg":"HS256"}

Base64url encoding the bytes of the UTF-8 representation of the JWT Header yields this Encoded JWS Header value, which is used as the Encoded JWT Header:

eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLA0KICJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9

The following is an example of a JWT Claims Set:

{"iss":"joe",
 "exp":1300819380,
 "http://example.com/is_root":true}

Base64url encoding the bytes of the UTF-8 representation of the JSON Claims Set yields this Encoded JWS Payload (with line breaks for display purposes only):

eyJpc3MiOiJqb2UiLA0KICJleHAiOjEzMDA4MTkzODAsDQogImh0dHA6Ly
9leGFtcGxlLmNvbS9pc19yb290Ijp0cnVlfQ

Signing the Encoded JWS Header and Encoded JWS Payload with the HMAC SHA-256 algorithm and base64url encoding the signature in the manner specified in [JWS] (Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, “JSON Web Signature (JWS),” March 2012.), yields this Encoded JWS Signature:

dBjftJeZ4CVP-mB92K27uhbUJU1p1r_wW1gFWFOEjXk

Concatenating these parts in this order with period characters between the parts yields this complete JWT (with line breaks for display purposes only):

eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLA0KICJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9
.
eyJpc3MiOiJqb2UiLA0KICJleHAiOjEzMDA4MTkzODAsDQogImh0dHA6Ly9leGFt
cGxlLmNvbS9pc19yb290Ijp0cnVlfQ
.
dBjftJeZ4CVP-mB92K27uhbUJU1p1r_wW1gFWFOEjXk

This computation is illustrated in more detail in [JWS] (Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, “JSON Web Signature (JWS),” March 2012.), Appendix A.1.

4.  JWT Claims

The JWT Claims Set represents a JSON object whose members are the claims conveyed by the JWT. The Claim Names within this object MUST be unique. Note however, that the set of claims that a JWT must contain to be considered valid is context-dependent and is outside the scope of this specification. When used in a security-related context, implementations MUST understand and support all of the claims present; otherwise, the JWT MUST be rejected for processing.

There are three classes of JWT Claim Names: Reserved Claim Names, Public Claim Names, and Private Claim Names.

4.1.  Reserved Claim Names

The following claim names are reserved. None of the claims defined in the table below are intended to be mandatory, but rather, provide a starting point for a set of useful, interoperable claims. All the names are short because a core goal of JWTs is for the tokens to be compact.

Additional reserved claim names MAY be defined via the IANA JSON Web Token Claims registry, as per Section 9 (IANA Considerations). The syntax values used above are defined as follows:

4.2.  Public Claim Names

Claim names can be defined at will by those using JWTs. However, in order to prevent collisions, any new claim name SHOULD either be defined in the IANA JSON Web Token Claims registry or be defined as a URI that contains a collision resistant namespace. Examples of collision resistant namespaces include:

• Domain Names,
• Object Identifiers (OIDs) as defined in the ITU-T X.660 and X.670 Recommendation series, or
• Universally Unique IDentifier (UUID) as defined in RFC 4122 (Leach, P., Mealling, M., and R. Salz, “A Universally Unique IDentifier (UUID) URN Namespace,” July 2005.) [RFC4122].

In each case, the definer of the name or value needs to take reasonable precautions to make sure they are in control of the part of the namespace they use to define the claim name.

4.3.  Private Claim Names

A producer and consumer of a JWT may agree to any claim name that is not a Reserved Name Section 4.1 (Reserved Claim Names) or a Public Name Section 4.2 (Public Claim Names). Unlike Public Names, these private names are subject to collision and should be used with caution.

5.  JWT Header

The members of the JSON object represented by the JWT Header describe the cryptographic operations applied to the JWT and optionally, additional properties of the JWT. The member names within the JWT Header are referred to as Header Parameter Names. These names MUST be unique. The corresponding values are referred to as Header Parameter Values.

Implementations MUST understand the entire contents of the header; otherwise, the JWT MUST be rejected for processing.

There are two ways of distinguishing whether the JWT is a JWS or JWE. The first is by examining the alg (algorithm) header value. If the value represents a signature algorithm, the JWT is a JWS; if it represents an encryption algorithm, the JWT is a JWE. A second method is determining whether an enc (encryption method) member exists. If the enc member exists, the JWT is a JWE; otherwise, the JWT is a JWS. Both methods will yield the same result.

JWS Header Parameters are defined by [JWS] (Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, “JSON Web Signature (JWS),” March 2012.). JWE Header Parameters are defined by [JWE] (Jones, M., Rescorla, E., and J. Hildebrand, “JSON Web Encryption (JWE),” March 2012.). This specification further specifies the use of the following header parameters in both the cases where the JWT is a JWS and where it is a JWE.

6.  Plaintext JWTs

To support use cases where the JWT content is secured by a means other than a signature and/or encryption contained within the token (such as a signature on a data structure containing the token), JWTs MAY also be created without a signature or encryption. A plaintext JWT is a JWS using the none JWS alg header parameter value defined in JSON Web Algorithms (JWA) [JWA] (Jones, M., “JSON Web Algorithms (JWA),” March 2012.); it is a signed JWT with an empty JWS Signature value.

6.1.  Example Plaintext JWT

The following example JWT Header declares that the encoded object is a Plaintext JWT:

{"alg":"none"}

Base64url encoding the bytes of the UTF-8 representation of the JWT Header yields this Encoded JWT Header:

eyJhbGciOiJub25lIn0

The following is an example of a JWT Claims Set:

{"iss":"joe",
 "exp":1300819380,
 "http://example.com/is_root":true}

Base64url encoding the bytes of the UTF-8 representation of the JSON Claims Set yields this Encoded JWS Payload (with line breaks for display purposes only):

eyJpc3MiOiJqb2UiLA0KICJleHAiOjEzMDA4MTkzODAsDQogImh0dHA6Ly9leGFt
cGxlLmNvbS9pc19yb290Ijp0cnVlfQ

The Encoded JWS Signature is the empty string.

Concatenating these parts in this order with period characters between the parts yields this complete JWT (with line breaks for display purposes only):

eyJhbGciOiJub25lIn0
.
eyJpc3MiOiJqb2UiLA0KICJleHAiOjEzMDA4MTkzODAsDQogImh0dHA6Ly9leGFt
cGxlLmNvbS9pc19yb290Ijp0cnVlfQ
.

7.  Rules for Creating and Validating a JWT

To create a JWT, one MUST perform these steps. The order of the steps is not significant in cases where there are no dependencies between the inputs and outputs of the steps.

1. Create a JWT Claims Set containing the desired claims. Note that white space is explicitly allowed in the representation and no canonicalization is performed before encoding.
2. Let the Message be the bytes of the UTF-8 representation of the JWT Claims Set.
3. Create a JWT Header containing the desired set of header parameters. The JWT MUST conform to either the [JWS] (Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, “JSON Web Signature (JWS),” March 2012.) or [JWE] (Jones, M., Rescorla, E., and J. Hildebrand, “JSON Web Encryption (JWE),” March 2012.) specifications. Note that white space is explicitly allowed in the representation and no canonicalization is performed before encoding.
4. Base64url encode the bytes of the UTF-8 representation of the JWT Header. Let this be the Encoded JWT Header.
5. Depending upon whether the JWT is to be signed or encrypted, there are two cases:
   • If the JWT is to be signed, create a JWS using the JWT Header as the JWS Header and the Message as the JWS Payload; all steps specified in [JWS] (Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, “JSON Web Signature (JWS),” March 2012.) for creating a JWS MUST be followed.
   • Else, if the JWT is to be encrypted, create a JWE using the JWT Header as the JWE Header and the Message as the JWE Plaintext; all steps specified in [JWE] (Jones, M., Rescorla, E., and J. Hildebrand, “JSON Web Encryption (JWE),” March 2012.) for creating a JWE MUST be followed.
6. If a nested signing or encryption operation will be performed, let the Message be the JWS or JWE, and return to Step 3, using a typ value of either "JWS" or "JWE" respectively in the new JWT Header created in that step.
7. Otherwise, let the resulting JWT be the JWS or JWE.

When validating a JWT the following steps MUST be taken. The order of the steps is not significant in cases where there are no dependencies between the inputs and outputs of the steps. If any of the listed steps fails then the token MUST be rejected for processing.

1. The JWT MUST contain at least one period character.
2. Let the Encoded JWT Header be the portion of the JWT before the first period character.
3. The Encoded JWT Header MUST be successfully base64url decoded following the restriction given in this specification that no padding characters have been used.
4. The JWT Header MUST be completely valid JSON syntax conforming to RFC 4627 (Crockford, D., “The application/json Media Type for JavaScript Object Notation (JSON),” July 2006.) [RFC4627].
5. The JWT Header MUST be validated to only include parameters and values whose syntax and semantics are both understood and supported.
6. Determine whether the JWT is a JWS or a JWE by examining the alg (algorithm) header value and optionally, the enc (encryption method) header value, if present.
7. Depending upon whether the JWT is a JWS or JWE, there are two cases:
   • If the JWT is a JWS, all steps specified in [JWS] (Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, “JSON Web Signature (JWS),” March 2012.) for validating a JWS MUST be followed. Let the Message be the result of base64url decoding the JWS Payload.
   • Else, if the JWT is a JWE, all steps specified in [JWE] (Jones, M., Rescorla, E., and J. Hildebrand, “JSON Web Encryption (JWE),” March 2012.) for validating a JWE MUST be followed. Let the Message be the JWE Plaintext.
8. If the JWT Header contains a typ value of either "JWS" or "JWE", then the Message contains a JWT that was the subject of nested signing or encryption operations, respectively. In this case, return to Step 1, using the Message as the JWT.
9. Otherwise, let the JWT Claims Set be the Message.
10. The JWT Claims Set MUST be completely valid JSON syntax conforming to RFC 4627 (Crockford, D., “The application/json Media Type for JavaScript Object Notation (JSON),” July 2006.) [RFC4627].
11. When used in a security-related context, the JWT Claims Set MUST be validated to only include claims whose syntax and semantics are both understood and supported.

Processing a JWT inevitably requires comparing known strings to values in the token. For example, in checking what the algorithm is, the Unicode string encoding alg will be checked against the member names in the JWT Header to see if there is a matching header parameter name. A similar process occurs when determining if the value of the alg header parameter represents a supported algorithm.

Comparisons between JSON strings and other Unicode strings MUST be performed as specified below:

1. Remove any JSON applied escaping to produce an array of Unicode code points.
2. Unicode Normalization (Davis, M., Whistler, K., and M. Dürst, “Unicode Normalization Forms,” 09 2009.) [USA15] MUST NOT be applied at any point to either the JSON string or to the string it is to be compared against.
3. Comparisons between the two strings MUST be performed as a Unicode code point to code point equality comparison.

8.  Cryptographic Algorithms

JWTs use JSON Web Signature (JWS) [JWS] (Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, “JSON Web Signature (JWS),” March 2012.) and JSON Web Encryption (JWE) [JWE] (Jones, M., Rescorla, E., and J. Hildebrand, “JSON Web Encryption (JWE),” March 2012.) to sign and/or encrypt the contents of the JWT.

Of the JWS signing algorithms, only HMAC SHA-256 and none MUST be implemented by conforming JWT implementations. It is RECOMMENDED that implementations also support the RSA SHA-256 and ECDSA P-256 SHA-256 algorithms. Support for other algorithms and key sizes is OPTIONAL.

If an implementation provides encryption capabilities, of the JWE encryption algorithms, only RSA-PKCS1-1.5 with 2048 bit keys, AES-128-CBC, and AES-256-CBC MUST be implemented by conforming implementations. It is RECOMMENDED that implementations also support ECDH-ES with 256 bit keys, AES-128-GCM, and AES-256-GCM. Support for other algorithms and key sizes is OPTIONAL.

9.  IANA Considerations

9.1.  JSON Web Token Claims Registry

This specification calls for:

• A new IANA registry entitled "JSON Web Token Claims" for reserved claim names is defined in Section 4.1 (Reserved Claim Names). Inclusion in the registry is RFC Required in the RFC 5226 (Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, “Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs,” May 2008.) [RFC5226] sense for reserved JWT claim names that are intended to be interoperable between implementations. The registry will just record the reserved claim name and a pointer to the RFC that defines it. This specification defines inclusion of the claim names defined in Table 1 (Reserved Claim Definitions).

9.2.  application/jwt MIME Media Type Registration

This specification registers the application/jwt MIME Media Type.

Type name:

application

Subtype name:

jwt

Required parameters:

n/a

Optional parameters:

n/a

Encoding considerations:

n/a

Security considerations:

See the Security Considerations section of this document

Interoperability considerations:

n/a

Published specification:

[[ this document ]]

Applications that use this media type:

OpenID Connect, Mozilla Browser ID, Salesforce, Google, numerous others

Additional information:

Magic number(s): n/a
File extension(s): n/a
Macintosh file type code(s): n/a

Person & email address to contact for further information:

Michael B. Jones
mbj@microsoft.com

Intended usage:

COMMON

Restrictions on usage:

none

Author:

Michael B. Jones
mbj@microsoft.com

Change controller:

Michael B. Jones
mbj@microsoft.com

10.  Security Considerations

TBD: Lots of work to do here. We need to remember to look into any issues relating to security and JSON parsing. One wonders just how secure most JSON parsing libraries are. Were they ever hardened for security scenarios? If not, what kind of holes does that open up? Also, we need to walk through the JSON standard and see what kind of issues we have especially around comparison of names. For instance, comparisons of claim names and other parameters must occur after they are unescaped. Need to also put in text about: Importance of keeping secrets secret. Rotating keys. Strengths and weaknesses of the different algorithms.

TBD: Need to put in text about why strict JSON validation is necessary. Basically, that if malformed JSON is received then the intent of the sender is impossible to reliably discern. One example of malformed JSON that MUST be rejected is an object in which the same member name occurs multiple times. While in non-security contexts it's o.k. to be generous in what one accepts, in security contexts this can lead to serious security holes. For example, malformed JSON might indicate that someone has managed to find a security hole in the issuer's code and is leveraging it to get the issuer to issue "bad" tokens whose content the attacker can control.

TBD: Write about the need to secure the token content if a signature is not contained in the JWT itself.

10.1.  Unicode Comparison Security Issues

Claim names in JWTs are Unicode strings. For security reasons, the representations of these names must be compared verbatim after performing any escape processing (as per RFC 4627 (Crockford, D., “The application/json Media Type for JavaScript Object Notation (JSON),” July 2006.) [RFC4627], Section 2.5).

This means, for instance, that these JSON strings must compare as being equal ("JWT", "\u004aWT"), whereas these must all compare as being not equal to the first set or to each other ("jwt", "Jwt", "JW\u0074").

JSON strings MAY contain characters outside the Unicode Basic Multilingual Plane. For instance, the G clef character (U+1D11E) may be represented in a JSON string as "\uD834\uDD1E". Ideally, JWT implementations SHOULD ensure that characters outside the Basic Multilingual Plane are preserved and compared correctly; alternatively, if this is not possible due to these characters exercising limitations present in the underlying JSON implementation, then input containing them MUST be rejected.

11.  Open Issues and Things To Be Done (TBD)

The following items remain to be done in this draft:

• EDITORIAL: Give each claim name and header parameter definition its own section. This will let them appear in the index, will give space for examples when needed, and will get rid of the way-too-cramped tables.
• Add normative text that requires rejecting headers and Claim Sets in which member names occur multiple times, as apparently this is legal JSON.
• Provide an example of an encrypted JWT.
• Clarify the intended use of the typ Header Parameter across the JWS, JWE, and JWT specifications. Decide whether a registry of typ values is appropriate.
• EDITORIAL: Think about how to best describe the concept currently described as "the bytes of the UTF-8 representation of". Possible terms to use instead of "bytes of" include "byte sequence", "octet series", and "octet sequence". Also consider whether we want to add an overall clarifying statement somewhere in each spec something like "every place we say 'the UTF-8 representation of X', we mean 'the bytes of the UTF-8 representation of X'". That would potentially allow us to omit the "the bytes of" part everywhere else.
• Finish the Security Considerations section.
• Possibly write a companion specification that uses the JWS and JWE JSON Serializations.

12.  References

12.1. Normative References

12.2. Informative References

Appendix A.  Relationship of JWTs to SAML Tokens

SAML 2.0 (Cantor, S., Kemp, J., Philpott, R., and E. Maler, “Assertions and Protocol for the OASIS Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) V2.0,” March 2005.) [OASIS.saml‑core‑2.0‑os] provides a standard for creating tokens with much greater expressivity and more security options than supported by JWTs. However, the cost of this flexibility and expressiveness is both size and complexity. In addition, SAML's use of XML (Cowan, J., “Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.1,” October 2002.) [W3C.CR‑xml11‑20021015] and XML DSIG (Eastlake, D., Reagle, J., and D. Solo, “(Extensible Markup Language) XML-Signature Syntax and Processing,” March 2002.) [RFC3275] only contributes to the size of SAML tokens.

JWTs are intended to provide a simple token format that is small enough to fit into HTTP headers and query arguments in URIs. It does this by supporting a much simpler token model than SAML and using the JSON (Crockford, D., “The application/json Media Type for JavaScript Object Notation (JSON),” July 2006.) [RFC4627] object encoding syntax. It also supports securing tokens using Hash-based Message Authentication Codes (HMACs) and digital signatures using a smaller (and less flexible) format than XML DSIG.

Therefore, while JWTs can do some of the things SAML tokens do, JWTs are not intended as a full replacement for SAML tokens, but rather as a compromise token format to be used when space is at a premium.

Appendix B.  Relationship of JWTs to Simple Web Tokens (SWTs)

Both JWTs and Simple Web Tokens SWT (Hardt, D. and Y. Goland, “Simple Web Token (SWT),” November 2009.) [SWT], at their core, enable sets of claims to be communicated between applications. For SWTs, both the claim names and claim values are strings. For JWTs, while claim names are strings, claim values can be any JSON type. Both token types offer cryptographic protection of their content: SWTs with HMAC SHA-256 and JWTs with a choice of algorithms, including HMAC SHA-256, RSA SHA-256, and ECDSA P-256 SHA-256.

Appendix C.  Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge that the design of JWTs was intentionally influenced by the design and simplicity of Simple Web Tokens (Hardt, D. and Y. Goland, “Simple Web Token (SWT),” November 2009.) [SWT] and ideas for JSON tokens that Dick Hardt discussed within the OpenID community.

Solutions for signing JSON content were previously explored by Magic Signatures (Panzer (editor), J., Laurie, B., and D. Balfanz, “Magic Signatures,” January 2011.) [MagicSignatures], JSON Simple Sign (Bradley, J. and N. Sakimura (editor), “JSON Simple Sign,” September 2010.) [JSS], and Canvas Applications (Facebook, “Canvas Applications,” 2010.) [CanvasApp], all of which influenced this draft.

Appendix D.  Document History

-08

• Removed language that required that a JWT must have three parts. Now the number of parts is explicitly dependent upon the representation of the underlying JWS or JWE.
• Moved the "alg":"none" definition to the JWS spec.
• Registered the application/jwt MIME Media Type.
• Clarified that the order of the creation and validation steps is not significant in cases where there are no dependencies between the inputs and outputs of the steps.
• Corrected the Magic Signatures and Simple Web Token (SWT) references.

-07

• Defined the prn (principal) claim to identify the subject of the JWT.
• Defined the jti (JWT ID) claim to enable replay protection.
• Use the term "JWT Claims Set" rather than "JWT Claims Object" since this is actually a string representing a JSON object and not the JSON object itself.
• Moved "MUST" requirements from the Overview to later in the spec.
• Respect line length restrictions in examples.
• Applied other editorial improvements.

-06

• Reference and use content from [JWS] (Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, “JSON Web Signature (JWS),” March 2012.) and [JWE] (Jones, M., Rescorla, E., and J. Hildebrand, “JSON Web Encryption (JWE),” March 2012.), rather than repeating it here.
• Simplified terminology to better match JWE, where the terms "JWT Header" and "Encoded JWT Header" are now used, for instance, rather than the previous terms "Decoded JWT Header Segment" and "JWT Header Segment". Also changed to "Plaintext JWT" from "Unsigned JWT".
• Describe how to perform nested encryption and signing operations.
• Changed "integer" to "number", since that is the correct JSON type.
• Changed StringAndURI to StringOrURI.

-05

• Added the nbf (not before) claim and clarified the meaning of the iat (issued at) claim.

-04

• Correct typo found by John Bradley: "the JWT Claim Segment is the empty string" -> "the JWT Crypto Segment is the empty string".

-03

• Added "http://openid.net/specs/jwt/1.0" as a token type identifier URI for JWTs.
• Added iat (issued at) claim.
• Changed RSA SHA-256 from MUST be supported to RECOMMENDED that it be supported. Rationale: Several people have objected to the requirement for implementing RSA SHA-256, some because they will only be using HMACs and symmetric keys, and others because they only want to use ECDSA when using asymmetric keys, either for security or key length reasons, or both.
• Defined alg value none to represent unsigned JWTs.

-02

• Split signature specification out into separate draft-jones-json-web-signature-00. This split introduced no semantic changes.
• The JWT Compact Serialization is now the only token serialization format specified in this draft. The JWT JSON Serialization can continue to be defined in a companion specification.

-01

• Draft incorporating consensus decisions reached at IIW.

-00

• Public draft published before November 2010 IIW based upon the JSON token convergence proposal incorporating input from several implementers of related specifications.

Authors' Addresses