Internet-Draft OAuth JWT Assertion Profiles November 2024
Jones, et al. Expires 17 May 2025 [Page]
Workgroup:
OAuth Working Group
Internet-Draft:
draft-jones-oauth-rfc7523bis-latest
Obsoletes:
7523 (if approved)
Updates:
7521 (if approved)
Published:
Intended Status:
Standards Track
Expires:
Authors:
M.B. Jones
Self-Issued Consulting
B. Campbell
Ping Identity
C. Mortimore
Disney

JSON Web Token (JWT) Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants

Abstract

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 client authentication.

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 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 17 May 2025.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

JSON Web Token (JWT) [JWT] is a JSON-based [RFC7159] 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 user 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.

"Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants" [RFC7521] 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 OAuth Assertion Framework [RFC7521] to define an extension grant type that uses a 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 specification "Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) 2.0 Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants" [RFC7522]. 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 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 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 or other endpoints such as the pushed authorization endpoint [RFC9126] 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.

1.1. Notational Conventions

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.

Unless otherwise noted, all the protocol parameter names and values are case sensitive.

1.2. Terminology

All terms are as defined in the following specifications: "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework" [RFC6749], the OAuth Assertion Framework [RFC7521], and "JSON Web Token (JWT)" [JWT].

2. HTTP Parameter Bindings for Transporting Assertions

The OAuth Assertion Framework [RFC7521] 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 in Section 4 of the OAuth Assertion Framework [RFC7521] 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 OAuth Assertion Framework [RFC7521], to indicate the requested scope.

Authentication of the client is optional, as described in Section 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.

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=eyJ0eXAiOiJhdXRob3JpemF0aW9uLWdyYW50K2p3dCIsImFsZyI6Ik
    VTMjU2Iiwia2lkIjoiMTYifQ.
  eyJhdWQiOiJodHRwczovLw[...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=n0esc3NRze7LTCu7iYzS6a5acc3f0ogp4&
  client_assertion_type=urn%3Aietf%3Aparams%3Aoauth%3A
  client-assertion-type%3Ajwt-bearer&
  client_assertion=eyJ0eXAiOiJjbGllbnQtYXV0aGVudGljYXRpb24rand0Iiwi
    YWxnIjoiUlMyNTYiLCJraWQiOiIyMiJ9.
  eyJhdWQiOiJodHRwczovLw[...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.

  1. The JWT MUST be explicitly typed, as defined in Section 3.11 of [RFC8725]. The typ header parameter values that MUST be used are defined in Section 3.1 and Section 3.2. The authorization server MUST reject JWTs that do not use the specified explicit type value.

  2. 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 of RFC 3986 [RFC3986].

  3. The JWT MUST contain a sub (subject) claim identifying the principal that is the subject of the JWT. Two cases need to be differentiated:

    1. 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.

    2. For client authentication, the subject MUST be the client_id of the OAuth client.

  4. The JWT MUST contain an aud (audience) claim containing the issuer identifier [RFC8414] of the authorization server as its sole value. The authorization server MUST have an issuer identifier to be used with this specification. Unlike the aud value specified in [RFC7523], there MUST be no value other than the issuer identifier of the intended authorization server used as the audience of the JWT; this includes that the token endpoint URL of the authorization server MUST NOT be used as an audience value. To simplify implementations, the aud claim value MUST be a JSON string, and not a single-valued JSON array. The authorization server MUST reject any JWT that does not contain its issuer identifier as its sole audience value. In the absence of an application profile specifying otherwise, compliant applications MUST compare the audience values using the Simple String Comparison method defined in Section 6.2.1 of RFC 3986 [RFC3986].

  5. The JWT MUST contain an exp (expiration time) 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.

  6. The JWT MAY contain an nbf (not before) claim that identifies the time before which the token MUST NOT be accepted for processing.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. The JWT MAY contain other claims.

  10. The JWT MUST be digitally signed or have a Message Authentication Code (MAC) applied by the issuer. The authorization server MUST reject JWTs with an invalid signature or MAC.

  11. 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

Authorization grant JWTs MUST be explicitly typed by using the typ header parameter value authorization-grant+jwt. Authorization grant JWTs not using this explicit type value MUST be rejected by the authorization server.

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.

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

Client authentication JWTs MUST be explicitly typed by using the typ header parameter value client-authentication+jwt. Client authentication JWTs not using this explicit type value MUST be rejected by the authorization server.

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://authz.example.net, which is the authorization server's issuer identifier. 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 Set for a JWT:

  {"aud":"https://authz.example.net",
   "iss":"https://jwt-idp.example.com",
   "sub":"mailto:mike@example.com",
   "iat":1731721541,
   "exp":1731725141,
   "http://claims.example.com/member":true
  }

The following example JSON object, used as the header parameters of a JWT, declares that the JWT is an authorization grant JWT, is signed with the Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) P-256 with SHA-256, and was signed with a key identified by the kid value 16.

  {"typ":"authorization-grant+jwt","alg":"ES256","kid":"16"}

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=eyJ0eXAiOiJhdXRob3JpemF0aW9uLWdyYW50K2p3dCIsImFsZyI6Ik
    VTMjU2Iiwia2lkIjoiMTYifQ.
  eyJhdWQiOiJodHRwczovLw[...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 include values for the issuer identifiers, the locations of endpoints, the key used to apply and verify the digital signature or MAC 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 Protocol [RFC7591], OAuth 2.0 Authorization Server Metadata [RFC8414], OpenID Connect Dynamic Client Registration 1.0 [OpenID.Registration], OpenID Connect Discovery 1.0 [OpenID.Discovery], and OpenID Federation 1.0 [OpenID.Federation].

The RS256 algorithm, from [JWA], is a mandatory-to-implement JSON Web Signature algorithm for this profile.

6. Security Considerations

The security considerations described within the following specifications are all applicable to this document: "Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants" [RFC7521], "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework" [RFC6749], and "JSON Web Token (JWT)" [JWT].

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.

This specification tightens the JWT audience requirements to prevent attacks that could result from exploiting audience ambiguities allowed by [RFC7523].

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 Transport Layer Security (TLS). In cases where it is desirable to prevent disclosure of certain information to the client, the JWT should 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 in Section 6.3.1 of the OAuth Assertion Framework [RFC7521].

8. IANA Considerations

The IANA actions of registering the URNs urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:jwt-bearer and urn:ietf:params:oauth:client-assertion-type:jwt-bearer in the IANA "OAuth URI" registry [IANA.OAuth.Parameters] established by "An IETF URN Sub-Namespace for OAuth" [RFC6755] were performed by [RFC7523].

8.1. Media Type Registration

This section registers the following media types [RFC2046] in the "Media Types" registry [IANA.MediaTypes] in the manner described in [RFC6838].

8.1.1. Registry Contents

  • Type name: application

  • Subtype name: authorization-grant+jwt

  • Required parameters: n/a

  • Optional parameters: n/a

  • Encoding considerations: binary; An authorization grant JWT is a JWT; JWT values are encoded as a series of base64url-encoded values (some of which may be the empty string) separated by period ('.') characters.

  • Security considerations: See Section 6 of this specification

  • Interoperability considerations: n/a

  • Published specification: Section 3.1 of this specification

  • Applications that use this media type: Applications that use this specification

  • Fragment identifier considerations: n/a

  • 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, michael_b_jones@hotmail.com

  • Intended usage: COMMON

  • Restrictions on usage: none

  • Author: Michael B. Jones, michael_b_jones@hotmail.com

  • Change controller: OpenID Foundation Artifact Binding Working Group - openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net

  • Provisional registration? No

  • Type name: application

  • Subtype name: client-authentication+jwt

  • Required parameters: n/a

  • Optional parameters: n/a

  • Encoding considerations: binary; A client authentication JWT is a JWT; JWT values are encoded as a series of base64url-encoded values (some of which may be the empty string) separated by period ('.') characters.

  • Security considerations: See Section 6 of this specification

  • Interoperability considerations: n/a

  • Published specification: Section 3.2 of this specification

  • Applications that use this media type: Applications that use this specification

  • Fragment identifier considerations: n/a

  • 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, michael_b_jones@hotmail.com

  • Intended usage: COMMON

  • Restrictions on usage: none

  • Author: Michael B. Jones, michael_b_jones@hotmail.com

  • Change controller: OpenID Foundation Artifact Binding Working Group - openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net

  • Provisional registration? No

9. References

9.1. Normative References

[JWA]
Jones, M., "JSON Web Algorithms (JWA)", RFC 7518, DOI 10.17487/RFC7518, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7518>.
[JWT]
Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token (JWT)", RFC 7519, DOI 10.17487/RFC7519, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7519>.
[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3986]
Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.
[RFC6749]
Hardt, D., Ed., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework", RFC 6749, DOI 10.17487/RFC6749, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6749>.
[RFC7159]
Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data Interchange Format", RFC 7159, DOI 10.17487/RFC7159, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7159>.
[RFC7521]
Campbell, B., Mortimore, C., Jones, M., and Y. Goland, "Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants", RFC 7521, DOI 10.17487/RFC7521, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7521>.
[RFC8174]
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8414]
Jones, M., Sakimura, N., and J. Bradley, "OAuth 2.0 Authorization Server Metadata", RFC 8414, DOI 10.17487/RFC8414, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8414>.
[RFC8725]
Sheffer, Y., Hardt, D., and M. Jones, "JSON Web Token Best Current Practices", BCP 225, RFC 8725, DOI 10.17487/RFC8725, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8725>.

9.2. Informative References

[IANA.MediaTypes]
IANA, "Media Types", <https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types>.
[IANA.OAuth.Parameters]
IANA, "OAuth Parameters", <https://www.iana.org/assignments/oauth-parameters>.
[OpenID.Discovery]
Sakimura, N., Bradley, J., Jones, M.B., and E. Jay, "OpenID Connect Discovery 1.0 incorporating errata set 2", , <https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-discovery-1_0.html>.
[OpenID.Federation]
Hedberg, R., Jones, M. B., Solberg, A., Bradley, J., Marco, G. D., and V. Dzhuvinov, "OpenID Federation 1.0", , <https://openid.net/specs/openid-federation-1_0.html>.
[OpenID.Registration]
Sakimura, N., Bradley, J., and M.B. Jones, "OpenID Connect Dynamic Client Registration 1.0 incorporating errata set 2", , <https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-registration-1_0.html>.
[RFC2046]
Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046, DOI 10.17487/RFC2046, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2046>.
[RFC6755]
Campbell, B. and H. Tschofenig, "An IETF URN Sub-Namespace for OAuth", RFC 6755, DOI 10.17487/RFC6755, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6755>.
[RFC6838]
Freed, N., Klensin, J., and T. Hansen, "Media Type Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 6838, DOI 10.17487/RFC6838, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6838>.
[RFC7522]
Campbell, B., Mortimore, C., and M. Jones, "Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) 2.0 Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants", RFC 7522, DOI 10.17487/RFC7522, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7522>.
[RFC7523]
Jones, M., Campbell, B., and C. Mortimore, "JSON Web Token (JWT) Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants", RFC 7523, DOI 10.17487/RFC7523, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7523>.
[RFC7591]
Richer, J., Ed., Jones, M., Bradley, J., Machulak, M., and P. Hunt, "OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration Protocol", RFC 7591, DOI 10.17487/RFC7591, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7591>.
[RFC9126]
Lodderstedt, T., Campbell, B., Sakimura, N., Tonge, D., and F. Skokan, "OAuth 2.0 Pushed Authorization Requests", RFC 9126, DOI 10.17487/RFC9126, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9126>.

Appendix A. Document History

[[ to be removed by the RFC Editor before publication as an RFC ]]

-00

Acknowledgements

This profile was derived from "Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) 2.0 Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants" [RFC7522], which has the same authors as this document.

Authors' Addresses

Michael B. Jones
Self-Issued Consulting
Brian Campbell
Ping Identity
Chuck Mortimore
Disney