Internet DRAFT - draft-campbell-oauth-dst4jwt
draft-campbell-oauth-dst4jwt
OAuth Working Group B. Campbell
Internet-Draft G. Liu
Intended status: Standards Track Ping Identity
Expires: August 27, 2015 February 23, 2015
Destination Claim for JSON Web Token
draft-campbell-oauth-dst4jwt-00
Abstract
The Destination Claim for JSON Web Token (JWT) provides a means of
indicating the address to which the JWT is sent. The Claim can be
used to preventing malicious forwarding or redirection of a JWT to
unintended recipients.
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 August 27, 2015.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 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.
Campbell & Liu Expires August 27, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft February 2015
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Notation and Conventions . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. The Destination Claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. JSON Web Token Claim Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1.1. Registry Request Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Appendix A. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Appendix B. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1. Introduction
JWT [I-D.ietf-oauth-json-web-token] is a compact, URL-safe means of
representing claims to be transferred between two parties.
Oftentimes an HTTP 302 redirect or an auto-submitted HTML form, using
the user agent as a intermediary, is employed as the method of
transfer. The Destination Claim provides a standard way for for the
Issuer to indicate the address to which it instructed the user agent
to deliver the JWT. The recipient of the JWT can detect and prevent
malicious forwarding or redirection to unintended recipients by
verifying that the address conveyed by the Destination Claim matches
the actual location at which the JWT was received.
While the Destination Claim bears some seeming similarity to the
Audience Claim already defined in JWT, the distinction is that the
Audience identifies _who_ the JWT is intended for while the
Destination identifies _where_ the JWT is sent.
1.1. Requirements Notation and 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 RFC
2119 [RFC2119].
1.2. Terminology
This specification uses the terms "JSON Web Token (JWT)", "Issuer"
"Claim", "Claim Name", and "Claim Value" as defined in
[I-D.ietf-oauth-json-web-token], and the term "user agent" as defined
by RFC 7230 [RFC7230].
Campbell & Liu Expires August 27, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft February 2015
2. The Destination Claim
The Claim Name of the Destination Claim is "dst" and its Claim Value
is a URI [RFC3986] indicating the address to which the JWT is sent.
Use of this Claim is OPTIONAL but, if the Claim is present, the
recipient MUST check that the URI identifies the location at which
the JWT was received. If the JWT is received at a different location
than the one conveyed by the value of the "dst" claim, then the JWT
MUST be rejected.
3. IANA Considerations
3.1. JSON Web Token Claim Registration
This specification registers the Destination Claim defined herein in
the IANA JSON Web Token Claims registry defined in
[I-D.ietf-oauth-json-web-token].
3.1.1. Registry Request Contents
o Claim Name: "dst"
o Claim Description: Destination
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): Section 2 of this document
4. Security Considerations
The Destination Claim defined in Section 2 provides a means to assist
in detecting and preventing malicious forwarding or redirection of a
JWT to unintended recipients. If, for example, an Issuer can be
tricked into sending a JWT to a malicious site (perhaps due to
inadequate checking of the target URI combined with Cross-Site
Request Forgery) the JWT would be unusable at the legitimate site
because the "dst" would contain a URI of the malicious site.
5. References
5.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-oauth-json-web-token]
Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token
(JWT)", draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token-32 (work in
progress), December 2014.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Campbell & Liu Expires August 27, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft February 2015
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC
3986, January 2005.
5.2. Informative References
[RFC7230] Fielding, R. and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol
(HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing", RFC 7230, June
2014.
Appendix A. Open Issues
o Is there compelling reason to allow the "dst" Claim to accommodate
multiple values? A single value is sufficient for the cases
envisioned and is certainly simpler.
Appendix B. Document History
[[ to be removed by the RFC Editor before publication as an RFC ]]
-00
o Gotta start somewhere...
Authors' Addresses
Brian Campbell
Ping Identity
Email: brian.d.campbell@gmail.com
Guoping Liu
Ping Identity
Email: gliu@pingidentity.com
Campbell & Liu Expires August 27, 2015 [Page 4]
