rfc9201xml2.original.xml   rfc9201.xml 
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- This template is for creating an Internet Draft using xml2rfc, <!DOCTYPE rfc [
which is available here: http://xml.resource.org. --> <!ENTITY nbsp "&#160;">
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [ <!ENTITY zwsp "&#8203;">
<!-- One method to get references from the online citation libraries. <!ENTITY nbhy "&#8209;">
There has to be one entity for each item to be referenced. <!ENTITY wj "&#8288;">
An alternate method (rfc include) is described in the references. -->
<!ENTITY RFC2119 SYSTEM
"http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC6749 SYSTEM
"http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6749.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC7252 SYSTEM
"http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7252.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC7800 SYSTEM
"http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7800.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8152 SYSTEM
"http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8152.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8174 SYSTEM
"http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8259 SYSTEM
"http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8259.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8705 SYSTEM
"http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8705.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8747 SYSTEM
"http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8747.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8949 SYSTEM
"http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8949.xml">
<!ENTITY I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bib
xml3/reference.I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz.xml">
]> ]>
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?> <rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" docName="draft-ietf-ace-oauth-pa
<!-- used by XSLT processors --> rams-16" number="9201" ipr="trust200902" obsoletes="" updates="" submissionType=
<!-- For a complete list and description of processing instructions (PIs), "IETF" category="std" consensus="true" xml:lang="en" tocInclude="true" tocDepth=
please see http://xml.resource.org/authoring/README.html. --> "4" symRefs="true" sortRefs="true" version="3">
<!-- Below are generally applicable Processing Instructions (PIs) that most I-Ds
might want to use.
(Here they are set differently than their defaults in xml2rfc v1.32) -->
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<!-- give errors regarding ID-nits and DTD validation -->
<!-- control the table of contents (ToC) -->
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<!-- generate a ToC -->
<?rfc tocdepth="4"?>
<!-- the number of levels of subsections in ToC. default: 3 -->
<!-- control references -->
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<!-- use symbolic references tags, i.e, [RFC2119] instead of [1] -->
<?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?>
<!-- sort the reference entries alphabetically -->
<!-- control vertical white space
(using these PIs as follows is recommended by the RFC Editor) -->
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<!-- do not start each main section on a new page -->
<?rfc subcompact="no" ?>
<!-- keep one blank line between list items -->
<!-- end of list of popular I-D processing instructions -->
<rfc category="std" docName="draft-ietf-ace-oauth-params-15" ipr="trust200902">
<!-- category values: std, bcp, info, exp, and historic
ipr values: full3667, noModification3667, noDerivatives3667
you can add the attributes updates="NNNN" and obsoletes="NNNN"
they will automatically be output with "(if approved)" -->
<!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 3.9.1 -->
<!-- ***** FRONT MATTER ***** --> <!-- ***** FRONT MATTER ***** -->
<front> <front>
<!-- The abbreviated title is used in the page header - it is only necessary if the full title is longer than 39 characters -->
<title abbrev="ACE-OAuth-Params">Additional OAuth Parameters for Authorization i <!--[rfced] Please note that the title and the short title (which appears in
n Constrained Environments (ACE)</title> the header of the PDF file) have been updated as follows. Please review.
<!-- add 'role="editor"' below for the editors if appropriate --> Title:
Original:
Additional OAuth Parameters for Authorization in Constrained Environments (AC
E)
<!-- Another author who claims to be an editor --> Current:
Additional OAuth Parameters for Authentication and Authorization for
Constrained Environments (ACE)
Short Title:
Original: ACE-OAuth-Params
Current: OAuth Parameters for ACE
-->
-&gt; <title abbrev="OAuth Parameters for ACE">Additional OAuth Parameters for Authent
ication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE)</title>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9201"/>
<author fullname="Ludwig Seitz" initials="L." surname="Seitz"> <author fullname="Ludwig Seitz" initials="L." surname="Seitz">
<organization>Combitech</organization> <organization>Combitech</organization>
<address> <address>
<postal> <postal>
<street>Djäknegatan 31</street> <street>Djäknegatan 31</street>
<code>211 35</code> <city>Malmö</city> <code>211 35</code>
<city>Malmö</city>
<country>Sweden</country> <country>Sweden</country>
</postal> </postal>
<email>ludwig.seitz@combitech.com</email> <email>ludwig.seitz@combitech.com</email>
<!-- uri and facsimile elements may also be added -->
</address> </address>
</author> </author>
<date year="2022" month="March"/>
<date year="2021"/>
<!-- If the month and year are both specified and are the current ones, xml2
rfc will fill
in the current day for you. If only the current year is specified, xml2
rfc will fill
in the current day and month for you. If the year is not the current one
, it is necessary to specify at least a month (xml2rfc assumes day="1" if not sp
ecified for the purpose of calculating the expiry date). With drafts it is norm
ally sufficient to specify just the year. -->
<!-- Meta-data Declarations --> <!-- Meta-data Declarations -->
<area>Security</area> <area>Security</area>
<workgroup>ACE</workgroup>
<workgroup>ACE Working Group</workgroup> <keyword>CoAP</keyword>
<keyword>OAuth 2.0</keyword>
<!-- WG name at the upperleft corner of the doc, <keyword>Access Control</keyword>
IETF is fine for individual submissions. <keyword>Authorization</keyword>
If this element is not present, the default is "Network Working Group", <keyword>Internet of Things</keyword>
which is used by the RFC Editor as a nod to the history of the IETF. --
>
<keyword>CoAP, OAuth 2.0, Access Control, Authorization, Internet of Things<
/keyword>
<!-- Keywords will be incorporated into HTML output
files in a meta tag but they have no effect on text or nroff
output. If you submit your draft to the RFC Editor, the
keywords will be used for the search engine. -->
<abstract> <abstract>
<t>This specification defines new parameters and encodings for the OAuth <t>This specification defines new parameters and encodings for the OAuth
2.0 token and introspection endpoints when used with the framework for 2.0 token and introspection endpoints when used with the framework for
authentication and authorization for constrained environments (ACE). Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE).
<!--[rfced] Would you like to replace instances of "proof-of-possession"
with "PoP" to match use in the companion documents?-->
These are used to express the proof-of-possession key the client These are used to express the proof-of-possession key the client
wishes to use, the proof-of-possession key that the Authorization Server wishes to use, the proof-of-possession key that the authorization server
has selected, and the key the Resource Server uses to authenticate has selected, and the proof-of-possession key the resource server uses to
authenticate
to the client.</t> to the client.</t>
</abstract> </abstract>
</front> </front>
<middle>
<!-- ***************************************************** -->
<middle> <section anchor="intro" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Introduction</name>
<!-- ***************************************************** --> <t>The Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE)
specification <xref target="RFC9200" format="default"/> requires some new
<section anchor="intro" title="Introduction"> parameters for interactions with the OAuth 2.0 <xref target="RFC6749" format="
default"/> token
<t>The Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE)
specification <xref target="I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz"/> requires some new
parameters for interactions with the OAuth 2.0 <xref target="RFC6749"/> token
and introspection endpoints, as well as some new claims to be used in access and introspection endpoints, as well as some new claims to be used in access
tokens. These parameters and claims can also be used in other contexts tokens. These parameters and claims can also be used in other contexts
and have therefore been put into a dedicated document, to and have therefore been put into a dedicated document to
facilitate their use in a manner independent of facilitate their use in a manner independent of
<xref target="I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz"/>.</t> <xref target="RFC9200" format="default"/>.</t>
<t>Note that although all examples are shown in Concise Binary Object
<t>Note that although all examples are shown in Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) <xref target="RFC8949" format="default"/>, JSON
Representation (CBOR) <xref target="RFC8949"/>, JSON <xref target="RFC8259" format="default"/> <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> be used as an alt
<xref target="RFC8259"/> MAY be used as an alternative for HTTP-based ernative for HTTP-based
communications, as specified in <xref target="I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz"/>.</t> communications, as specified in <xref target="RFC9200" format="default"/>.</t>
</section> </section>
<!-- ***************************************************** -->
<!-- ***************************************************** -->
<section anchor="terminology" title="Terminology">
<t>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 <xref
target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they appear in
all capitals, as shown here.</t>
<t>Readers are assumed to be familiar with the terminology from <xref <section anchor="terminology" numbered="true" toc="default">
target="I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz"/>, especially the terminology <name>Terminology</name>
for entities in the architecture such as client (C), resource server (RS) <t>The key words "<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14
>REQUIRED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL
NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>RECO
MMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>", and
"<bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14>" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 <xref target="RFC2119" format="default"/> <xref target="RFC8174" format=
"default"/> when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.</t>
<t>Readers are assumed to be familiar with the terminology from <xref targ
et="RFC9200" format="default"/>, especially the terminology
for entities in the architecture such as client (C), resource server (RS),
and authorization server (AS).</t> and authorization server (AS).</t>
<t>Terminology from <xref target="RFC8152" format="default"/> is used in t
he examples,
especially COSE_Key, which is defined in <xref target="RFC8152" sectionFormat=
"of" section="7"/>.</t>
<t>Note that the term "endpoint" is used here following its OAuth 2.0
<xref target="RFC6749" format="default"/> definition, which is to denote r
esources
such as token and introspection at the AS and authz-info at the RS. The C
onstrained
Application Protocol (CoAP) <xref target="RFC7252" format="default"/> defi
nition,
which is "[a]n entity participating in the CoAP protocol", is not used in
this
specification.</t>
</section>
<!-- ***************************************************** -->
<t>Terminology from <xref target="RFC8152"/> is used in the examples, <section anchor="tokenEndpoint" numbered="true" toc="default">
especially COSE_Key defined in section 7 of <xref target="RFC8152"/>.</t> <name>Parameters for the Token Endpoint</name>
<t>This section defines additional parameters for the interactions with
<t>Note that the term "endpoint" is used here following its OAuth 2.0 the token endpoint in the ACE framework <xref target="RFC9200" format="default
<xref target="RFC6749"/> definition, which is to denote resources such as "/>.</t>
token and introspection at the AS and authz-info at the RS. The Constrained <section anchor="tokenRequest" numbered="true" toc="default">
Application Protocol (CoAP) <xref target="RFC7252"/> definition, which is "An <name>Client-to-AS Request</name>
entity participating in the CoAP protocol" is not used in this <t>This section defines the "req_cnf" parameter allowing clients to
specification.</t>
</section>
<!-- ***************************************************** -->
<section anchor="tokenEndpoint" title="Parameters for the Token Endpoint">
<t>This section defines additional parameters for the interactions with
the token endpoint in the ACE framework <xref
target="I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz"/>.</t>
<section anchor="tokenRequest" title="Client-to-AS Request">
<t>This section defines the "req_cnf" parameter allowing clients to
request a specific proof-of-possession key in an access token from a token request a specific proof-of-possession key in an access token from a token
endpoint in the ACE framework <xref target="I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz"/>: endpoint in the ACE framework <xref target="RFC9200" format="default"/>:
<list style="hanging"> </t>
<t hangText="req_cnf"><vspace blankLines="0"/> <dl newline="true" spacing="normal">
OPTIONAL. This field contains information about the key the <dt>req_cnf</dt>
client would like to bind to the access token for proof-of-possession. <dd>
It is RECOMMENDED that an AS rejects a request containing a symmetric <bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14>. This field contains information about the key t
key value in the 'req_cnf' field (kty=Symmetric), since the AS is he
client would like to bind to the access token for proof of possession.
It is <bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14> that an AS rejects a request containing
a symmetric
key value in the "req_cnf" field (kty=Symmetric), since the AS is
expected to be able to generate better symmetric keys than a expected to be able to generate better symmetric keys than a
constrained client (Note: this does not apply to key identifiers constrained client. (Note: this does not apply to key identifiers
referencing a symmetric key). The AS MUST verify that the client referencing a symmetric key.) The AS <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> verify that the
client
really is in possession of the corresponding key. Profiles of really is in possession of the corresponding key. Profiles of
<xref target="I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz"/> using this specification MUST <xref target="RFC9200" format="default"/> using this specification
define the proof-of-possession method used by the AS, if they allow <bcp14>MUST</bcp14>
define the proof-of-possession method used by the AS if they allow
clients to use this request parameter. Values of this parameter follow clients to use this request parameter. Values of this parameter follow
the syntax and semantics of the "cnf" claim either from section 3.1 of the syntax and semantics of the "cnf" claim either from
<xref target="RFC8747"/> for CBOR-based interactions or from section 3.1 <xref target="RFC8747" sectionFormat="of" section="3.1"/> for CBOR-based
of <xref target="RFC7800"/> for JSON-based interactions.</t> interactions or from
</list> <xref target="RFC7800" sectionFormat="of" section="3.1"/> for JSON-based
</t> interactions.</dd>
</dl>
<t><xref target="fig_symmATreq" format="default"/> shows a request for a
n access
token using the "req_cnf" parameter to request a specific public key as a
proof-of-possession key. The content is displayed in CBOR diagnostic
notation without abbreviations and with line breaks for better readabilit
y.</t>
<t><xref target="fig:symmATreq"/> shows a request for an access token <!--[rfced] Please review the "type" attribute of each sourcecode element
using the "req_cnf" parameter to request a specific public key as in the XML file to ensure correctness. If the current list of preferred
proof-of-possession key. The content is displayed in CBOR diagnostic values for "type" (https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/sourcecode-types.txt)
notation, without abbreviations and with line-breaks for better readability. does not contain an applicable type, then feel free to let us know.-->
<figure align="center" anchor="fig:symmATreq" <figure anchor="fig_symmATreq">
title="Example request for an access token bound to an <name>Example Request for an Access Token Bound to an Asymmetric Key</
asymmetric key."> name>
<artwork align="left"><![CDATA[ <sourcecode name="" type="cbor-diag"><![CDATA[
Header: POST (Code=0.02) Header: POST (Code=0.02)
Uri-Host: "as.example.com" Uri-Host: "as.example.com"
Uri-Path: "token" Uri-Path: "token"
Content-Format: "application/ace+cbor" Content-Format: "application/ace+cbor"
Payload: Payload:
{ {
"req_cnf" : { "req_cnf" : {
"COSE_Key" : { "COSE_Key" : {
"kty" : "EC2", "kty" : "EC2",
"kid" : h'11', "kid" : h'11',
"crv" : "P-256", "crv" : "P-256",
"x" : h'BAC5B11CAD8F99F9C72B05CF4B9E26D24 "x" : h'BAC5B11CAD8F99F9C72B05CF4B9E26D24
4DC189F745228255A219A86D6A09EFF', 4DC189F745228255A219A86D6A09EFF',
"y" : h'20138BF82DC1B6D562BE0FA54AB7804A3 "y" : h'20138BF82DC1B6D562BE0FA54AB7804A3
A64B6D72CCFED6B6FB6ED28BBFC117E' A64B6D72CCFED6B6FB6ED28BBFC117E'
} }
} }
} }
]]></artwork> ]]></sourcecode>
</figure></t> </figure>
</section><!-- C->AS --> </section>
<!-- C->AS -->
<section anchor="tokenResponse" title="AS-to-Client Response">
<t>This section defines the following additional parameters for <section anchor="tokenResponse" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>AS-to-Client Response</name>
<t>This section defines the following additional parameters for
an AS response to a request to the token endpoint: an AS response to a request to the token endpoint:
<list style="hanging"> </t>
<t hangText="cnf"><vspace blankLines="0"/> <dl newline="true" spacing="normal">
REQUIRED if the token type is "pop" and a symmetric key is used. <dt>cnf</dt>
MAY be present for asymmetric proof-of-possession keys. This field <dd>
<bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14> if the token type is "pop" and a symmetric key is
used.
<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> be present for asymmetric proof-of-possession keys. T
his field
contains the proof-of-possession key that the AS selected for the contains the proof-of-possession key that the AS selected for the
token. Values of this parameter follow the syntax and semantics of the token. Values of this parameter follow the syntax and semantics of the
"cnf" claim either from section 3.1 of <xref target="RFC8747"/> for "cnf" claim either from <xref target="RFC8747" sectionFormat="of" section
CBOR-based interactions or from section 3.1 of <xref target="RFC7800"/> ="3.1"/>
for JSON-based interactions. See <xref target="paramCnf"/> for for
CBOR-based interactions or from <xref target="RFC7800" sectionFormat="of"
section="3.1"/>
for JSON-based interactions. See <xref target="paramCnf" format="default
"/> for
additional discussion of the usage of this parameter. additional discussion of the usage of this parameter.
<vspace blankLines="1"/></t> </dd>
<dt>rs_cnf</dt>
<t hangText="rs_cnf"><vspace blankLines="0"/> <dd>
OPTIONAL if the token type is "pop" and asymmetric keys are used. <bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14> if the token type is "pop" and asymmetric keys ar
MUST NOT be present otherwise. This field contains information about e used.
<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> be present otherwise. This field contains informa
tion about
the public key used by the RS to authenticate. If this parameter is the public key used by the RS to authenticate. If this parameter is
absent, either the RS does not use a public key or the AS knows that absent, either the RS does not use a public key or the AS knows that
the RS can authenticate itself to the client without additional the RS can authenticate itself to the client without additional
information. Values of this parameter follow the syntax and semantics information. Values of this parameter follow the syntax and semantics
of the "cnf" claim either from section 3.1 of of the "cnf" claim either from
<xref target="RFC8747"/> for CBOR-based interactions or from section 3.1 <xref target="RFC8747" sectionFormat="of" section="3.1"/> for CBOR-based
of <xref target="RFC7800"/> for JSON-based interactions. See interactions or from
<xref target="paramCnf"/> for additional discussion of the usage of this <xref target="RFC7800" sectionFormat="of" section="3.1"/> for JSON-based
parameter. </t> interactions. See
</list> <xref target="paramCnf" format="default"/> for additional discussion of t
</t> he usage
of this parameter. </dd>
<t><xref target="fig:symmATres"/> shows an AS response containing a token </dl>
and a "cnf" parameter with a symmetric proof-of-possession key. <t><xref target="fig_symmATres" format="default"/> shows an AS response
containing
<figure align="center" anchor="fig:symmATres" a token and a "cnf" parameter with a symmetric proof-of-possession key.</
title="Example AS response with an access token bound to a t>
symmetric key."> <figure anchor="fig_symmATres">
<artwork align="left"><![CDATA[ <name>Example AS Response with an Access Token Bound to a Symmetric Ke
y</name>
<sourcecode name="" type="cbor-diag"><![CDATA[
Header: Created (Code=2.01) Header: Created (Code=2.01)
Content-Format: "application/ace+cbor" Content-Format: "application/ace+cbor"
Payload: Payload:
{ {
"access_token" : h'4A5015DF686428 ... "access_token" : h'4A5015DF686428 ...
(remainder of CWT omitted for brevity; (remainder of CWT omitted for brevity;
CWT contains COSE_Key in the "cnf" claim)', CWT contains COSE_Key in the "cnf" claim)',
"cnf" : { "cnf" : {
"COSE_Key" : { "COSE_Key" : {
"kty" : "Symmetric", "kty" : "Symmetric",
"kid" : h'DFD1AA97', "kid" : h'DFD1AA97',
"k" : h'849B5786457C1491BE3A76DCEA6C427108' "k" : h'849B5786457C1491BE3A76DCEA6C427108'
} }
} }
} }
]]></artwork> ]]></sourcecode>
</figure></t> </figure>
<t><xref target="fig_asymmATres" format="default"/> shows an AS response
<t><xref target="fig:asymmATres"/> shows an AS response containing a token containing
bound to a previously requested asymmetric proof-of-possession key (not a token bound to a previously requested asymmetric proof-of-possession ke
shown) and a "rs_cnf" parameter containing the public key of the RS. y (not
<figure align="center" anchor="fig:asymmATres" shown) and an "rs_cnf" parameter containing the public key of the RS.</t>
title="Example AS response, including the RS's public key."> <figure anchor="fig_asymmATres">
<artwork align="left"><![CDATA[ <name>Example AS Response Including the RS's Public Key</name>
<sourcecode name="" type="cbor-diag"><![CDATA[
Header: Created (Code=2.01) Header: Created (Code=2.01)
Content-Format: "application/ace+cbor" Content-Format: "application/ace+cbor"
Payload: Payload:
{ {
"access_token" : h'D08343A1010AA1054D2A45DF6FBC5A5A ... "access_token" : h'D08343A1010AA1054D2A45DF6FBC5A5A ...
(remainder of CWT omitted for brevity)', (remainder of CWT omitted for brevity)',
"rs_cnf" : { "rs_cnf" : {
"COSE_Key" : { "COSE_Key" : {
"kty" : "EC2", "kty" : "EC2",
"kid" : h'12', "kid" : h'12',
"crv" : "P-256", "crv" : "P-256",
"x" : h'BCEE7EAAC162F91E6F330F5771211E220 "x" : h'BCEE7EAAC162F91E6F330F5771211E220
B8B546C96589B0AC4AD0FD24C77E1F1', B8B546C96589B0AC4AD0FD24C77E1F1',
"y" : h'C647B38C55EFBBC4E62E651720F002D5D "y" : h'C647B38C55EFBBC4E62E651720F002D5D
75B2E0C02CD1326E662BCA222B90416' 75B2E0C02CD1326E662BCA222B90416'
} }
} }
} }
]]></artwork> ]]></sourcecode>
</figure></t> </figure>
</section><!-- AS->C --> </section>
</section> <!--Token Endpont--> <!-- AS->C -->
</section>
<section anchor="introsp" <!--Token Endpont-->
title="Parameters for the Introspection Endpoint">
<t>This section defines the use of CBOR instead of JSON for the "cnf"
introspection response parameter specified in section 9.4 of <xref
target="RFC8705"/>.</t>
<t>If CBOR is used instead of JSON in an interaction with the introspection
endpoint, the AS MUST use the parameter mapping specified in <xref
target="fig:cborParameters"/> and the value must follow the syntax of "cnf"
claim values from section 3.1 of <xref
target="RFC8747"/>.</t>
<t><xref target="fig:introRes"/> shows an AS response to an introspection <section anchor="introsp" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Parameters for the Introspection Endpoint</name>
<t>This section defines the use of CBOR instead of JSON for the "cnf"
introspection response parameter specified in <xref target="RFC8705"
sectionFormat="of" section="9.4"/>.</t>
<t>If CBOR is used instead of JSON in an interaction with the introspectio
n
endpoint, the AS <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> use the parameter mapping specified i
n <xref
target="fig_cborParameters" format="default"/> and the value must follow t
he syntax
of "cnf" claim values from <xref target="RFC8747" sectionFormat="of"
section="3.1"/>.</t>
<t><xref target="fig_introRes" format="default"/> shows an AS response to
an introspection
request including the "cnf" parameter to indicate the proof-of-possession request including the "cnf" parameter to indicate the proof-of-possession
key bound to the token. key bound to the token.
<figure align="center" anchor="fig:introRes" </t>
title="Example introspection response."> <figure anchor="fig_introRes">
<artwork align="left"><![CDATA[ <name>Example Introspection Response</name>
<sourcecode name="" type="cbor-diag"><![CDATA[
Header: Created (Code=2.01) Header: Created (Code=2.01)
Content-Format: "application/ace+cbor" Content-Format: "application/ace+cbor"
Payload: Payload:
{ {
"active" : true, "active" : true,
"scope" : "read", "scope" : "read",
"aud" : "tempSensor4711", "aud" : "tempSensor4711",
"cnf" : { "cnf" : {
"COSE_Key" : { "COSE_Key" : {
"kty" : "EC2", "kty" : "EC2",
"kid" : h'11', "kid" : h'11',
"crv" : "P-256", "crv" : "P-256",
"x" : h'BAC5B11CAD8F99F9C72B05CF4B9E26D24 "x" : h'BAC5B11CAD8F99F9C72B05CF4B9E26D24
4DC189F745228255A219A86D6A09EFF', 4DC189F745228255A219A86D6A09EFF',
"y" : h'20138BF82DC1B6D562BE0FA54AB7804A3 "y" : h'20138BF82DC1B6D562BE0FA54AB7804A3
A64B6D72CCFED6B6FB6ED28BBFC117E' A64B6D72CCFED6B6FB6ED28BBFC117E'
} }
} }
} }
]]></artwork> ]]></sourcecode>
</figure></t> </figure>
</section> <!-- introspection --> </section>
<!-- introspection -->
<section anchor="paramCnf" title="Confirmation Method Parameters">
<t>The confirmation method parameters are used in
<xref target="I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz"/> as follows:
<list style="symbols">
<t>"req_cnf" in the access token request C -> AS, OPTIONAL to indicate
the client's raw public key, or the key-identifier of a previously
established key between C and RS that the client wishes to use
for proof-of-possession of the access token.</t>
<t>"cnf" in the token response AS -> C, OPTIONAL if using an
asymmetric key or a key that the client requested via a key identifier
in the request. REQUIRED if the client didn't specify a "req_cnf" and
symmetric keys are used. Used to indicate the symmetric key generated
by the AS for proof-of-possession of the access token.</t>
<t>"cnf" in the introspection response AS -> RS, REQUIRED if the
access token that was subject to introspection is a proof-of-possession
token, absent otherwise. Indicates the proof-of-possession key bound
to the access token.</t>
<t>"rs_cnf" in the token response AS -> C, OPTIONAL to indicate the
public key of the RS, if it uses one to authenticate itself to the client
and the binding between key and RS identity is not established through
other means.</t>
</list></t>
<t>Note that the COSE_Key structure in a confirmation claim or parameter
may contain an "alg" or "key_ops" parameter. If such parameters are
present, a client MUST NOT use a key that is incompatible with
the profile or proof-of-possession algorithm according to those
parameters. An RS MUST reject a proof-of-possession using such a key with
a response code equivalent to the CoAP code 4.00 (Bad Request).
</t>
<t>If an access token is issued for an audience that includes several RS, <section anchor="paramCnf" numbered="true" toc="default">
the "rs_cnf" parameter MUST NOT be used, since the client cannot <name>Confirmation Method Parameters</name>
<t>The confirmation method parameters are used in
<xref target="RFC9200" format="default"/> as follows:
</t>
<ul spacing="normal">
<li>"req_cnf" in the access token request C -&gt; AS, <bcp14>OPTIONAL</b
cp14> to
indicate the client's raw public key or the key identifier of a previous
ly
established key between the C and RS that the client wishes to use
for proof of possession of the access token.</li>
<li>"cnf" in the token response AS -&gt; C, <bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14> if u
sing an
asymmetric key or a key that the client requested via a key identifier
in the request. <bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14> if the client didn't specify a "r
eq_cnf" and
symmetric keys are used. Used to indicate the symmetric key generated
by the AS for proof of possession of the access token.</li>
<li>"cnf" in the introspection response AS -&gt; RS, <bcp14>REQUIRED</bc
p14> if the
access token that was subject to introspection is a proof-of-possession
token, absent otherwise. Indicates the proof-of-possession key bound
to the access token.</li>
<li>"rs_cnf" in the token response AS -&gt; C, <bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14> t
o indicate
the public key of the RS if it uses one to authenticate itself to the cli
ent
and the binding between the key and RS identity is not established throug
h
other means.</li>
</ul>
<t>Note that the COSE_Key structure in a confirmation claim or parameter
may contain an "alg" or "key_ops" parameter. If such parameters are
present, a client <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> use a key that is incompatible w
ith
the profile or proof-of-possession algorithm according to those
parameters. An RS <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> reject a proof of possession using s
uch a key
with a response code equivalent to the CoAP code 4.00 (Bad Request).
</t>
<t>If an access token is issued for an audience that includes several RSs,
the "rs_cnf" parameter <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> be used, since the client canno
t
determine for which RS the key applies. This document recommends to determine for which RS the key applies. This document recommends to
specify a different endpoint that the client can use to acquire RS specify a different endpoint that the client can use to acquire RS
authentication keys in such cases. The specification of such an endpoint authentication keys in such cases. The specification of such an endpoint
is out of scope for this document.</t> is out of scope for this document.</t>
</section> </section>
<section anchor="paramsCbor" numbered="true" toc="default">
<section anchor="paramsCbor" title="CBOR Mappings"> <name>CBOR Mappings</name>
<t>If CBOR is used, the new parameters and claims defined in this document <t>If CBOR is used, the new parameters and claims defined in this document
MUST be mapped to CBOR types as specified in <xref <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be mapped to CBOR types, as specified in <xref target="fig
target="fig:cborParameters"/>, using the given integer abbreviation for the _cborParameters" format="default"/>, using the given integer abbreviation for th
map key. e
map key.</t>
<figure align="center" anchor="fig:cborParameters" <table anchor="fig_cborParameters" align="left">
title="CBOR mappings for new parameters and claims."> <name>CBOR Mappings for New Parameters and Claims</name>
<artwork align="left"><![CDATA[ <thead>
/----------+----------+-------------------------------------\ <tr>
| Name | CBOR Key | Value Type | Usage | <th>Name</th>
|----------+----------+-------------------------------------| <th>CBOR Key</th>
| req_cnf | TBD (4) | map | token request | <th>Value Type</th>
| cnf | TBD (8) | map | token response | <th>Usage</th>
| cnf | TBD (8) | map | introspection response | </tr>
| rs_cnf | TBD (41) | map | token response | </thead>
\----------+----------+------------+------------------------/ <tbody>
]]></artwork> <tr>
</figure> <td>req_cnf</td>
</t> <td>4</td>
</section> <td>map</td>
<td>token request</td>
<section anchor="asymmReq" title="Requirements when using asymmetric keys"> </tr>
<t>An RS using asymmetric keys to authenticate to the client MUST NOT <tr>
hold several different asymmetric key pairs, applicable to the same <td>cnf</td>
authentication algorithm. For example when using DTLS, the RS MUST NOT <td>8</td>
hold several asymmetric key pairs applicable to the same cipher suite. <td>map</td>
The reason for this restriction is that the RS has no way of determining <td>token response</td>
which key to use before the client's identity is established. Therefore </tr>
authentication attempts by the RS could randomly fail based on which key the <tr>
RS selects, unless the algorithm negotiation produces a unique choice of <td>cnf</td>
key pair for the RS. <td>8</td>
</t> <td>map</td>
</section> <td>introspection response</td>
</tr>
<section anchor="security" title="Security Considerations"> <tr>
<t>This document is an extension to <xref <td>rs_cnf</td>
target="I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz"/>. All security considerations <td>41</td>
from that document apply here as well.</t> <td>map</td>
</section> <td>token response</td>
</tr>
<section anchor="privacy" title="Privacy Considerations"> </tbody>
<t>This document is an extension to <xref </table>
target="I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz"/>. All privacy considerations </section>
from that document apply here as well.</t> <section anchor="asymmReq" numbered="true" toc="default">
</section> <name>Requirements When Using Asymmetric Keys</name>
<t>An RS using asymmetric keys to authenticate to the client <bcp14>MUST N
<section anchor="iana" title="IANA Considerations"> OT</bcp14>
<section anchor="IANAOAuthParameter" hold several different asymmetric key pairs applicable to the same
title="OAuth Parameter Registration"> authentication algorithm. For example, when using DTLS, the RS <bcp14>MUS
<t>This section registers the following parameters in the "OAuth T
Parameters" registry <xref target="IANA.OAuthParameters"/>:</t> NOT</bcp14> hold several asymmetric key pairs applicable to the same ciphe
r suite.
<t><?rfc subcompact="yes"?> The reason for this restriction is that the RS has no way of determining
<list style='symbols'> which key to use before the client's identity is established. Therefore,
<t>Name: <spanx style="verb">req_cnf</spanx></t> authentication attempts by the RS could randomly fail based on which key t
<t>Parameter Usage Location: token request</t> he
<t>Change Controller: IESG</t> RS selects, unless the algorithm negotiation produces a unique choice of k
<t>Reference: <xref target="paramCnf"/> of [this document]</t> ey pair
</list></t> for the RS.</t>
</section>
<t><?rfc subcompact="yes"?> <section anchor="security" numbered="true" toc="default">
<list style='symbols'> <name>Security Considerations</name>
<t>Name: <spanx style="verb">rs_cnf</spanx></t> <t>This document is an extension to <xref target="RFC9200" format="default
<t>Parameter Usage Location: token response</t> "/>. All
<t>Change Controller: IESG</t> security considerations from that document apply here as well.</t>
<t>Reference: <xref target="paramCnf"/> of [this document]</t> </section>
</list></t> <section anchor="privacy" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Privacy Considerations</name>
<t><?rfc subcompact="yes"?> <t>This document is an extension to <xref target="RFC9200" format="default
<list style='symbols'> "/>. All
<t>Name: <spanx style="verb">cnf</spanx></t> privacy considerations from that document apply here as well.</t>
<t>Parameter Usage Location: token response</t> </section>
<t>Change Controller: IESG</t> <section anchor="iana" numbered="true" toc="default">
<t>Reference: <xref target="paramCnf"/> of [this document]</t> <name>IANA Considerations</name>
</list></t> <section anchor="IANAOAuthParameter" numbered="true" toc="default">
</section> <name>OAuth Parameter Registration</name>
<t>This section registers the following parameters in the "OAuth
<section anchor="IANATokenCBORMappingRegistration" Parameters" registry <xref target="IANA.OAuthParameters" format="default"
title="OAuth Parameters CBOR Mappings Registration"> />:</t>
<t>This section registers the following parameter mappings <dl newline="false" spacing="compact">
in the "OAuth Parameters CBOR Mappings" registry established in <dt>Name:</dt>
section 8.9. of <xref target="I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz"/>.</t> <dd><tt>req_cnf</tt></dd>
<dt>Parameter Usage Location:</dt>
<t><?rfc subcompact="yes"?> <dd>token request</dd>
<list style='symbols'> <dt>Change Controller:</dt>
<t>Name: <spanx style="verb">req_cnf</spanx></t> <dd>IETF</dd>
<t>CBOR key: TBD (suggested: 4)</t> <dt>Reference:</dt>
<t>Change Controller: IESG</t> <dd><xref target="paramCnf" format="default"/> of RFC 9201</dd>
<t>Reference: <xref target="tokenRequest"/> of [this document]</t> </dl>
</list></t> <dl newline="false" spacing="compact">
<dt>Name:</dt>
<t><?rfc subcompact="yes"?> <dd><tt>rs_cnf</tt></dd>
<list style='symbols'> <dt>Parameter Usage Location:</dt>
<t>Name: <spanx style="verb">cnf</spanx></t> <dd>token response</dd>
<t>CBOR key: TBD (suggested: 8)</t> <dt>Change Controller:</dt>
<t>Change Controller: IESG</t> <dd>IETF</dd>
<t>Reference: <xref target="tokenResponse"/> of [this document]</t> <dt>Reference:</dt>
</list></t> <dd><xref target="paramCnf" format="default"/> of RFC 9201</dd>
</dl>
<t><?rfc subcompact="yes"?> <dl newline="false" spacing="compact">
<list style='symbols'> <dt>Name:</dt>
<t>Name: <spanx style="verb">rs_cnf</spanx></t> <dd><tt>cnf</tt></dd>
<t>CBOR key: TBD (suggested: 41)</t> <dt>Parameter Usage Location:</dt>
<t>Change Controller: IESG</t> <dd>token response</dd>
<t>Reference: <xref target="tokenResponse"/> of [this document]</t> <dt>Change Controller:</dt>
</list></t> <dd>IETF</dd>
</section> <dt>Reference:</dt>
<dd><xref target="paramCnf" format="default"/> of RFC 9201</dd>
<section anchor="IANAIntrospectCBORMappingRegistration" </dl>
title="OAuth Token Introspection Response CBOR Mappings </section>
Registration"> <section anchor="IANATokenCBORMappingRegistration" numbered="true" toc="de
<t>This section registers the following parameter mapping fault">
in the "OAuth Token Introspection Response CBOR Mappings" registry <name>OAuth Parameters CBOR Mappings Registration</name>
established in section 8.11. of <xref <t>This section registers the following parameter mappings
target="I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz"/>.</t> in the "OAuth Parameters CBOR Mappings" registry established in
<xref target="RFC9200" sectionFormat="of" section="8.10"/>.</t>
<t><?rfc subcompact="yes"?> <dl newline="false" spacing="compact">
<list style='symbols'> <dt>Name:</dt>
<t>Name: <spanx style="verb">cnf</spanx></t> <dd><tt>req_cnf</tt></dd>
<t>CBOR key: TBD (suggested: 8)</t> <dt>CBOR Key:</dt>
<t>Change Controller: IESG</t> <dd>4</dd>
<t>Reference: <xref target="introsp"/> of [this document]</t> <dt>Value Type:</dt>
</list></t> <dd>map</dd>
<dt>Reference:</dt>
</section> <dd><xref target="tokenRequest" format="default"/> of RFC 9201</dd>
</section><!-- IANA considerations --> <dt>Original specification:</dt>
<dd>RFC 9201</dd>
<section anchor="Acknowledgments" title="Acknowledgments"> </dl>
<t>This document is a product of the ACE working group of the IETF. <dl newline="false" spacing="compact">
Special thanks to Brian Campbell for his thorough review of this document.</t> <dt>Name:</dt>
<dd><tt>cnf</tt></dd>
<t>Ludwig Seitz worked on this document as part of the CelticNext projects <dt>CBOR Key:</dt>
CyberWI, and CRITISEC with funding from Vinnova.</t> <dd>8</dd>
</section> <dt>Value Type:</dt>
<dd>map</dd>
<dt>Reference:</dt>
<dd><xref target="tokenResponse" format="default"/> of RFC 9201</dd>
<dt>Original specification:</dt>
<dd>RFC 9201</dd>
</dl>
<dl newline="false" spacing="compact">
<dt>Name:</dt>
<dd><tt>rs_cnf</tt></dd>
<dt>CBOR Key:</dt>
<dd>41</dd>
<dt>Value Type:</dt>
<dd>map</dd>
<dt>Reference:</dt>
<dd><xref target="tokenResponse" format="default"/> of RFC 9201</dd>
<dt>Original specification:</dt>
<dd>RFC 9201</dd>
</dl>
</section>
<section anchor="IANAIntrospectCBORMappingRegistration" numbered="true" to
c="default">
<name>OAuth Token Introspection Response CBOR Mappings Registration</nam
e>
<t>This section registers the following parameter mapping
in the "OAuth Token Introspection Response CBOR Mappings" registry
established in <xref target="RFC9200" sectionFormat="of" section="8.12"/>
.</t>
<dl newline="false" spacing="compact">
<dt>Name:</dt>
<dd><tt>cnf</tt></dd>
<dt>CBOR Key:</dt>
<dd>8</dd>
<dt>Value Type:</dt>
<dd>map</dd>
<dt>Reference:</dt>
<dd><xref target="introsp" format="default"/> of RFC 9201</dd>
<dt>Original specification:</dt>
<dd><xref target="RFC8705" format="default"/></dd>
</dl>
</section>
</section>
<!-- Possibly a 'Contributors' section ... -->
</middle> </middle>
<!-- *****BACK MATTER ***** --> <!-- *****BACK MATTER ***** -->
<back> <back>
<!-- References split into informative and normative --> <!-- References split into informative and normative -->
<!-- There are 2 ways to insert reference entries from the citation librarie <references>
s: <name>References</name>
1. define an ENTITY at the top, and use "ampersand character"RFC2629; here <references>
(as shown) <name>Normative References</name>
2. simply use a PI "less than character"?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119.xm <!-- [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz] - companion document RFC 9200 -->
l"?> here <reference anchor='RFC9200' target='https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9200'>
(for I-Ds: include="reference.I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis. <front>
xml") <title>Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) Using
the OAuth 2.0 Framework (ACE-OAuth)</title>
Both are cited textually in the same manner: by using xref elements. <author initials='L' surname='Seitz' fullname='Ludwig Seitz'>
If you use the PI option, xml2rfc will, by default, try to find included fi <organization />
les in the same </author>
directory as the including file. You can also define the XML_LIBRARY enviro <author initials='G' surname='Selander' fullname='Göran Selander'>
nment variable <organization />
with a value containing a set of directories to search. These can be eithe </author>
r in the local <author initials='E' surname='Wahlstroem' fullname='Erik Wahlstroem'>
filing system or remote ones accessed by http (http://domain/dir/... ).--> <organization />
</author>
<author initials='S' surname='Erdtman' fullname='Samuel Erdtman'>
<organization />
</author>
<author initials='H' surname='Tschofenig' fullname='Hannes Tschofenig'>
<organization />
</author>
<date year='2022' month='March' />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9200"/>
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9200"/>
</reference>
<references title="Normative References"> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
<!--?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC. FC.2119.xml"/>
2119.xml"?--> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
&I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz; FC.6749.xml"/>
&RFC2119; <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
&RFC6749; FC.7800.xml"/>
&RFC7800; <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
&RFC8152; FC.8152.xml"/>
&RFC8174; <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
&RFC8259; FC.8174.xml"/>
&RFC8705; <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
&RFC8747; FC.8259.xml"/>
&RFC8949; <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
<reference anchor="IANA.OAuthParameters" target="https://www.iana.org/assi FC.8705.xml"/>
gnments/oauth-parameters/oauth-parameters.xhtml#parameters"> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
<front> FC.8747.xml"/>
<title>OAuth Parameters</title> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
<author> FC.8949.xml"/>
<organization>IANA</organization>
</author>
<date/>
</front>
</reference>
</references>
<references title="Informative References"> <reference anchor="IANA.OAuthParameters" target="https://www.iana.org/as
&RFC7252; signments/oauth-parameters">
<front>
<title>OAuth Parameters</title>
<author>
<organization>IANA</organization>
</author>
</front>
</reference>
</references>
<references>
<name>Informative References</name>
<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
FC.7252.xml"/>
</references>
</references> </references>
<section anchor="Acknowledgments" numbered="false" toc="default">
<name>Acknowledgments</name>
<t>This document is a product of the ACE Working Group of the IETF.
Special thanks to <contact fullname="Brian Campbell"/> for his thorough re
view of
this document.</t>
<t><contact fullname="Ludwig Seitz"/> worked on this document as part of t
he
CelticNext projects CyberWI and CRITISEC with funding from Vinnova.</t>
</section>
</back> </back>
</rfc>
</rfc>
<!-- LocalWords: Combitech Djäknegatan Malmö CoAP CBOR JSON BCP req <!-- LocalWords: Combitech Djäknegatan Malmö CoAP CBOR JSON BCP req
--> -->
<!-- LocalWords: authz cnf DTLS RPK COSE alg JWT IESG TBD PoP IETF <!-- LocalWords: authz cnf DTLS RPK COSE alg JWT IESG TBD PoP IETF
--> -->
<!-- LocalWords: Seitz CelticNext CyberWI CRITISEC Vinnova Ds xml <!-- LocalWords: Seitz CelticNext CyberWI CRITISEC Vinnova Ds xml
--> -->
<!-- LocalWords: rfc http IANA <!-- LocalWords: rfc http IANA
--> -->
 End of changes. 52 change blocks. 
458 lines changed or deleted 516 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/