CBOR Web Token (CWT)
draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-04
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 8392.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Michael B. Jones , Erik Wahlstroem , Samuel Erdtman , Hannes Tschofenig | ||
| Last updated | 2017-04-13 | ||
| Replaces | draft-wahlstroem-ace-cbor-web-token | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
GENART Telechat review
(of
-12)
by Dan Romascanu
Almost ready
|
||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 8392 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-04
ACE Working Group M. Jones
Internet-Draft Microsoft
Intended status: Standards Track E. Wahlstroem
Expires: October 15, 2017
S. Erdtman
Spotify AB
H. Tschofenig
ARM Ltd.
April 13, 2017
CBOR Web Token (CWT)
draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-04
Abstract
CBOR Web Token (CWT) is a compact means of representing claims to be
transferred between two parties. CWT is a profile of the JSON Web
Token (JWT) that is optimized for constrained devices. The claims in
a CWT are encoded in the Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)
and CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) is used for added
application layer security protection. A claim is a piece of
information asserted about a subject and is represented as a name/
value pair consisting of a claim name and a claim value.
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 October 15, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Jones, et al. Expires October 15, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft CBOR Web Token April 2017
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Claim Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.1. iss (Issuer) Claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.2. sub (Subject) Claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.3. aud (Audience) Claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.4. exp (Expiration Time) Claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.5. nbf (Not Before) Claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.6. iat (Issued At) Claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.7. cti (CWT ID) Claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Summary of the values, CBOR major types and encoded claim
keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. CBOR Tags and Claim Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. CWT CBOR Tag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Creating and Validating CWTs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.1. Creating a CWT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.2. Validating a CWT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.1. CBOR Web Token (CWT) Claims Registry . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.1.1. Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.1.2. Initial Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.2. Media Type Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.2.1. Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.3. CoAP Content-Formats Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.3.1. Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.4. CBOR Tag registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.4.1. Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix A. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.1. Example CWT Claims Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.2. Example keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A.2.1. 128-bit Symmetric Key as Hex Encoded String . . . . . 15
Jones, et al. Expires October 15, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft CBOR Web Token April 2017
A.2.2. 256-bit Symmetric Key as Hex Encoded String . . . . . 15
A.2.3. ECDSA P-256 256-bit COSE Key . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A.3. Example Signed CWT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
A.4. Example MACed CWT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
A.5. Example Encrypted CWT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
A.6. Example Nested CWT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Appendix B. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Appendix C. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1. Introduction
The JSON Web Token (JWT) [RFC7519] is a standardized security token
format that has found use in OAuth 2.0 and OpenID Connect
deployments, among other applications. JWT uses JSON Web Signature
(JWS) [RFC7515] and JSON Web Encryption (JWE) [RFC7516] to secure the
contents of the JWT, which is a set of claims represented in JSON.
The use of JSON for encoding information is popular for Web and
native applications, but it is considered inefficient for some
Internet of Things (IoT) systems that use low power radio
technologies.
An alternative encoding of claims is defined in this document.
Instead of using JSON, as provided by JWTs, this specification uses
CBOR [RFC7049] and calls this new structure "CBOR Web Token (CWT)",
which is a compact means of representing secured claims to be
transferred between two parties. CWT is closely related to JWT. It
references the JWT claims and both its name and pronunciation are
derived from JWT. To protect the claims contained in CWTs, the CBOR
Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) [I-D.ietf-cose-msg]
specification is used.
The suggested pronunciation of CWT is the same as the English word
"cot".
2. Terminology
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
"Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels" [RFC2119].
This document reuses terminology from JWT [RFC7519] and COSE
[I-D.ietf-cose-msg].
StringOrURI:
The "StringOrURI" term has the same meaning, syntax, and
processing rules as the "StringOrUri" term defined in Section 2 of
Jones, et al. Expires October 15, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft CBOR Web Token April 2017
JWT [RFC7519], except that a CWT StringOrURI uses CBOR major type
3 (text string) instead of a JSON string value.
NumericDate:
The "NumericDate" term has the same meaning, syntax, and
processing rules as the "NumericDate" term defined in Section 2 of
JWT [RFC7519], except that a CWT NumericDate uses one of the CBOR
numeric types (0, 1, or 7 with subtypes 25, 26, or 27), instead of
a numeric JSON value. The numeric date values that can used for a
CWT NumericDate are identical to the epoch-based date/time values
that are specified to follow the tag defined in Section 2.4.1
(Date and Time) of [RFC7049], except that the tag itself need not
be present.
CBOR encoded claim key:
The key used to identify a claim value.
CWT Claims Set
A CBOR map that contains the claims conveyed by the CWT.
3. Claims
The set of claims that a CWT must contain to be considered valid is
context dependent and is outside the scope of this specification.
Specific applications of CWTs will require implementations to
understand and process some claims in particular ways. However, in
the absence of such requirements, all claims that are not understood
by implementations MUST be ignored.
To keep CWTs as small as possible, the CBOR encoded claim keys are
represented using CBOR major type 0. Section 4 summarizes all keys
used to identify the claims defined in this document.
3.1. Claim Names
None of the claims defined below are intended to be mandatory to use
or implement. They rather provide a starting point for a set of
useful, interoperable claims. Applications using CWTs should define
which specific claims they use and when they are required or
optional.
3.1.1. iss (Issuer) Claim
The "iss" (issuer) claim has the same meaning, syntax, and processing
rules as the "iss" claim defined in Section 4.1.1 of JWT [RFC7519],
except that the format MUST be a StringOrURI. The CBOR encoded claim
key 1 MUST be used to identify this claim.
Jones, et al. Expires October 15, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft CBOR Web Token April 2017
3.1.2. sub (Subject) Claim
The "sub" (subject) claim has the same meaning, syntax, and
processing rules as the "sub" claim defined in Section 4.1.2 of JWT
[RFC7519], except that the format MUST be a StringOrURI. The CBOR
encoded claim key 2 MUST be used to identify this claim.
3.1.3. aud (Audience) Claim
The "aud" (audience) claim has the same meaning, syntax, and
processing rules as the "aud" claim defined in Section 4.1.3 of JWT
[RFC7519], except that the format MUST be a StringOrURI. The CBOR
encoded claim key 3 MUST be used to identify this claim.
3.1.4. exp (Expiration Time) Claim
The "exp" (expiration time) claim has the same meaning, syntax, and
processing rules as the "exp" claim defined in Section 4.1.4 of JWT
[RFC7519], except that the format MUST be a CWT NumericDate. The
CBOR encoded claim key 4 MUST be used to identify this claim.
3.1.5. nbf (Not Before) Claim
The "nbf" (not before) claim has the same meaning, syntax, and
processing rules as the "nbf" claim defined in Section 4.1.5 of JWT
[RFC7519], except that the format MUST be a CWT NumericDate. The
CBOR encoded claim key 5 MUST be used to identify this claim.
3.1.6. iat (Issued At) Claim
The "iat" (issued at) claim has the same meaning, syntax, and
processing rules as the "iat" claim defined in Section 4.1.6 of JWT
[RFC7519], except that the format MUST be a CWT NumericDate. The
CBOR encoded claim key 6 MUST be used to identify this claim.
3.1.7. cti (CWT ID) Claim
The "cti" (CWT ID) claim has the same meaning, syntax, and processing
rules as the "jti" claim defined in Section 4.1.7 of JWT [RFC7519],
except that the format MUST be of major type 2, binary string. The
CBOR encoded claim key 7 MUST be used to identify this claim.
4. Summary of the values, CBOR major types and encoded claim keys
Jones, et al. Expires October 15, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft CBOR Web Token April 2017
/---------+------------------------+-------------------------------\
| Claim | CBOR encoded claim key | CBOR major type of value |
|---------+------------------------+-------------------------------|
| iss | 1 | 3 |
| sub | 2 | 3 |
| aud | 3 | 3 |
| exp | 4 | 0, 1, or 7 with float subtype |
| nbf | 5 | 0, 1, or 7 with float subtype |
| iat | 6 | 0, 1, or 7 with float subtype |
| cti | 7 | 2 |
\---------+------------------------+-------------------------------/
Figure 1: Summary of the values, CBOR major types and encoded claim
keys.
5. CBOR Tags and Claim Values
The use of CBOR tags to prefix any of the claim values defined in
this specification is NOT RECOMMENDED. For instance, while CBOR tag
6.1 (seconds-since-the-epoch) could logically be prefixed to values
of the "exp", "nbf", and "iat" claims, this is unnecessary, since the
representation of the claim values is already specified by the claim
definitions. Tagging claim values would only take up extra space,
without adding information. However, other claims defined by other
specifications can specify that a tag prefix the claim value, when
appropriate.
6. CWT CBOR Tag
How to determine that a CBOR data structure is a CWT is application-
dependent. In some cases, this information is known from the
application context, such as from the position of the CWT in a data
structure at which the value must be a CWT. One method of indicating
that a CBOR object is a CWT is the use of the "application/cwt"
content type by a transport protocol.
This section defines the CWT CBOR tag as another means for
applications to declare that a CBOR data structure is a CWT. Its use
is optional, and is intended for use in cases in which this
information would not otherwise be known.
If present, the CWT tag MUST prefix a tagged object using one of the
COSE CBOR tags. In this example, the COSE_Mac0 tag is used. The
actual COSE_Mac0 object has been excluded from this example.
Jones, et al. Expires October 15, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft CBOR Web Token April 2017
/ CWT CBOR tag / 61(
/ COSE_Mac0 CBOR tag / 17(
/ COSE_Mac0 object /
)
)
Figure 2: Example of a CWT tag usage
7. Creating and Validating CWTs
7.1. Creating a CWT
To create a CWT, the following steps are performed. 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 CWT Claims Set containing the desired claims.
2. Let the Message be the binary representation of the CWT Claims
Set.
3. Create a COSE Header containing the desired set of Header
Parameters. The COSE Header MUST be valid per the
[I-D.ietf-cose-msg] specification.
4. Depending upon whether the CWT is signed, MACed, or encrypted,
there are three cases:
* If the CWT is signed, create a COSE_Sign/COSE_Sign1 object
using the Message as the COSE_Sign/COSE_Sign1 Payload; all
steps specified in [I-D.ietf-cose-msg] for creating a
COSE_Sign/COSE_Sign1 object MUST be followed.
* Else, if the CWT is MACed, create a COSE_Mac/COSE_Mac0 object
using the Message as the COSE_Mac/COSE_Mac0 Payload; all steps
specified in [I-D.ietf-cose-msg] for creating a COSE_Mac/
COSE_Mac0 object MUST be followed.
* Else, if the CWT is a COSE_Encrypt/COSE_Encrypt0 object,
create a COSE_Encrypt/COSE_Encrypt0 using the Message as the
plaintext for the COSE_Encrypt/COSE_Encrypt0 object; all steps
specified in [I-D.ietf-cose-msg] for creating a COSE_Encrypt/
COSE_Encrypt0 object MUST be followed.
5. If a nested signing, MACing or encryption operation will be
performed, let the Message be the COSE_Sign/COSE_Sign1, COSE_Mac/
COSE_Mac0 or COSE_Encrypt/COSE_Encrypt0, and return to Step 3,
using a "content type" header value corresponding to the media
Jones, et al. Expires October 15, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft CBOR Web Token April 2017
type "application/cwt" in the new COSE Header created in that
step.
6. If needed by the application, add the appropriate COSE CBOR tag
to the COSE object to indicate type of COSE object. If also
needed by the application, add the CWT CBOR tag to indicate that
the COSE object is a CWT.
7.2. Validating a CWT
When validating a CWT, the following steps are performed. 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 fail, then the CWT MUST be rejected -- that is,
treated by the application as invalid input.
1. Verify that the CWT is a valid CBOR object.
2. If the object begins with the CWT CBOR tag, remove it and verify
that one of the COSE CBOR tags follows it.
3. If the object is tagged with one of the COSE CBOR tags, remove it
and verify that it corresponds to the structure of the following
COSE object.
4. Verify that the resulting COSE Header includes only parameters
and values whose syntax and semantics are both understood and
supported or that are specified as being ignored when not
understood.
5. Use the CBOR tag to determine the type of the CWT, COSE_Sign/
COSE_Sign1, COSE_Mac/COSE_Mac0, or COSE_Encrypt/COSE_Encrypt0.
6. Depending upon whether the CWT is a signed, MACed, or encrypted,
there are three cases:
* If the CWT is a COSE_Sign/COSE_Sign1, follow the steps
specified in [I-D.ietf-cose-msg] Section 4 (Signing Objects)
for validating a COSE_Sign/COSE_Sign1 object. Let the Message
be the COSE_Sign/COSE_Sign1 payload.
* Else, if the CWT is a COSE_Mac/COSE_Mac0, follow the steps
specified in [I-D.ietf-cose-msg] Section 6 (MAC Objects) for
validating a COSE_Mac/COSE_Mac0 object. Let the Message be
the COSE_Mac/COSE_Mac0 payload.
* Else, if the CWT is a COSE_Encrypt/COSE_Encrypt0 object,
follow the steps specified in [I-D.ietf-cose-msg] Section 5
Jones, et al. Expires October 15, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft CBOR Web Token April 2017
(Encryption Objects) for validating a COSE_Encrypt/
COSE_Encrypt0 object. Let the Message be the resulting
plaintext.
7. If the COSE Header contains a "content type" header value
corresponding to the media type "application/cwt", then the
Message is a CWT that was the subject of nested signing or
encryption operations. In this case, return to Step 1, using the
Message as the CWT.
8. Verify that the Message is a valid CBOR object; let the CWT
Claims Set be this CBOR object.
8. Security Considerations
The security of the CWT is dependent on the protections offered by
COSE. Unless the claims in a CWT are protected, an adversary can
modify, add, or remove claims. Since the claims conveyed in a CWT
may be used to make authorization decisions, it is not only important
to protect the CWT in transit but also to ensure that the recipient
can authenticate the party that assembled the claims and created the
CWT. Without trust of the recipient in the party that created the
CWT, no sensible authorization decision can be made. Furthermore,
the creator of the CWT needs to carefully evaluate each claim value
prior to including it in the CWT so that the recipient can be assured
of the validity of the information provided.
9. IANA Considerations
9.1. CBOR Web Token (CWT) Claims Registry
This section establishes the IANA "CBOR Web Token (CWT) Claims"
registry.
Values are registered on a Specification Required [RFC5226] basis, on
the advice of one or more Designated Experts. However, to allow for
the allocation of values prior to publication, the Designated Experts
may approve registration once they are satisfied that such a
specification will be published.
Criteria that should be applied by the Designated Experts includes
determining whether the proposed registration duplicates existing
functionality, whether it is likely to be of general applicability or
whether it is useful only for a single application, and whether the
registration description is clear.
Jones, et al. Expires October 15, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft CBOR Web Token April 2017
9.1.1. Registration Template
Claim Name:
The human-readable name requested (e.g., "iss").
Claim Description:
Brief description of the claim (e.g., "Issuer").
JWT Claim Name:
Claim Name of the equivalent JWT claim, as registered in
[IANA.JWT.Claims]. CWT claims should normally have a
corresponding JWT claim. If a corresponding JWT claim would not
make sense, the Designated Experts can choose to accept
registrations for which the JWT Claim Name is listed as "N/A".
CBOR Key Value:
Key value for the claim. The key value MUST be an integer in the
range of 1 to 65536.
CBOR Major Type:
CBOR major type and optional tag for the claim.
Change Controller:
For Standards Track RFCs, list the "IESG". For others, give the
name of the responsible party. Other details (e.g., postal
address, email address, home page URI) may also be included.
Specification Document(s):
Reference to the document or documents that specify the parameter,
preferably including URIs that can be used to retrieve copies of
the documents. An indication of the relevant sections may also be
included but is not required.
9.1.2. Initial Registry Contents
o Claim Name: "iss"
o Claim Description: Issuer
o JWT Claim Name: "iss"
o CBOR Key Value: 1
o CBOR Major Type: 3
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): Section 3.1.1 of [[ this specification
]]
o Claim Name: "sub"
o Claim Description: Subject
o JWT Claim Name: "sub"
o CBOR Key Value: 2
Jones, et al. Expires October 15, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft CBOR Web Token April 2017
o CBOR Major Type: 3
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): Section 3.1.2 of [[ this specification
]]
o Claim Name: "aud"
o Claim Description: Audience
o JWT Claim Name: "aud"
o CBOR Key Value: 3
o CBOR Major Type: 3
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): Section 3.1.3 of [[ this specification
]]
o Claim Name: "exp"
o Claim Description: Expiration Time
o JWT Claim Name: "exp"
o CBOR Key Value: 4
o CBOR Major Type: 0, 1, or 7 with subtypes 25, 26, or 27
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): Section 3.1.4 of [[ this specification
]]
o Claim Name: "nbf"
o Claim Description: Not Before
o JWT Claim Name: "nbf"
o CBOR Key Value: 5
o CBOR Major Type: 0, 1, or 7 with subtypes 25, 26, or 27
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): Section 3.1.5 of [[ this specification
]]
o Claim Name: "iat"
o Claim Description: Issued At
o JWT Claim Name: "iat"
o CBOR Key Value: 6
o CBOR Major Type: 0, 1, or 7 with subtypes 25, 26, or 27
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): Section 3.1.6 of [[ this specification
]]
o Claim Name: "cti"
o Claim Description: CWT ID
o JWT Claim Name: "jti"
o CBOR Key Value: 7
o CBOR Major Type: 2
o Change Controller: IESG
Jones, et al. Expires October 15, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft CBOR Web Token April 2017
o Specification Document(s): Section 3.1.7 of [[ this specification
]]
9.2. Media Type Registration
This section registers the "application/cwt" media type in the "Media
Types" registry [IANA.MediaTypes] in the manner described in RFC 6838
[RFC6838], which can be used to indicate that the content is a CWT.
9.2.1. Registry Contents
o Type name: application
o Subtype name: cwt
o Required parameters: N/A
o Optional parameters: N/A
o Encoding considerations: binary
o Security considerations: See the Security Considerations section
of [[ this specification ]]
o Interoperability considerations: N/A
o Published specification: [[ this specification ]]
o Applications that use this media type: IoT applications sending
security tokens over HTTP(S) and other transports.
o Fragment identifier considerations: N/A
o Additional information:
Magic number(s): N/A
File extension(s): N/A
Macintosh file type code(s): N/A
o Person & email address to contact for further information:
IESG, iesg@ietf.org
o Intended usage: COMMON
o Restrictions on usage: none
o Author: Michael B. Jones, mbj@microsoft.com
o Change controller: IESG
o Provisional registration? No
9.3. CoAP Content-Formats Registration
This section registers the CoAP Content-Format ID for the
"application/cwt" media type in the "CoAP Content-Formats" registry
[IANA.CoAP.Content-Formats].
9.3.1. Registry Contents
o Media Type: application/cwt
o Encoding: -
o Id: TBD (maybe 61)
Jones, et al. Expires October 15, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft CBOR Web Token April 2017
o Reference: [[ this specification ]]
9.4. CBOR Tag registration
This section registers the CWT CBOR tag in the "CBOR Tags" registry
[IANA.CBOR.Tags].
9.4.1. Registry Contents
o CBOR Tag: TBD (maybe 61 to use the same value as the Content-
Format)
o Data Item: CBOR Web Token (CWT)
o Semantics: CBOR Web Token (CWT), as defined in [[ this
specification ]]
o Reference: [[ this specification ]]
o Point of Contact: Michael B. Jones, mbj@microsoft.com
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-cose-msg]
Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)",
draft-ietf-cose-msg-24 (work in progress), November 2016.
[IANA.CBOR.Tags]
IANA, "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags",
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/cbor-tags/
cbor-tags.xhtml>.
[IANA.CoAP.Content-Formats]
IANA, "CoAP Content-Formats",
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/core-parameters/
core-parameters.xhtml#content-formats>.
[IANA.MediaTypes]
IANA, "Media Types",
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC7049] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
Representation (CBOR)", RFC 7049, DOI 10.17487/RFC7049,
October 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7049>.
Jones, et al. Expires October 15, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft CBOR Web Token April 2017
[RFC7519] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token
(JWT)", RFC 7519, DOI 10.17487/RFC7519, May 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7519>.
10.2. Informative References
[IANA.JWT.Claims]
IANA, "JSON Web Token Claims",
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/jwt>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC6838] Freed, N., Klensin, J., and T. Hansen, "Media Type
Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13,
RFC 6838, DOI 10.17487/RFC6838, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6838>.
[RFC7515] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web
Signature (JWS)", RFC 7515, DOI 10.17487/RFC7515, May
2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7515>.
[RFC7516] Jones, M. and J. Hildebrand, "JSON Web Encryption (JWE)",
RFC 7516, DOI 10.17487/RFC7516, May 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7516>.
Appendix A. Examples
This appendix includes a set of CWT examples that show how the CWT
Claims Set can be protected. There are examples that are signed,
MACed, encrypted, and that use nested signing and encryption. To
make the examples easier to read, they are presented both as hex
strings and in the extended CBOR diagnostic notation described in
Section 6 of [RFC7049].
A.1. Example CWT Claims Set
The CWT Claims Set used for the different examples displays usage of
all the defined claims. For signed and MACed examples, the CWT
Claims Set is the CBOR encoding as a binary string.
a70175636f61703a2f2f61732e6578616d706c652e636f6d02656572696b7703
7818636f61703a2f2f6c696768742e6578616d706c652e636f6d041a5612aeb0
051a5610d9f0061a5610d9f007420b71
Figure 3: Example CWT Claims Set as hex string
Jones, et al. Expires October 15, 2017 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft CBOR Web Token April 2017
{
/ iss / 1: "coap://as.example.com",
/ sub / 2: "erikw",
/ aud / 3: "coap://light.example.com",
/ exp / 4: 1444064944,
/ nbf / 5: 1443944944,
/ iat / 6: 1443944944,
/ cti / 7: h'0b71'
}
Figure 4: Example CWT Claims Set in CBOR diagnostic notation
A.2. Example keys
This section contains the keys used to sign, MAC, and encrypt the
messages in this appendix. Line breaks are for display purposes
only.
A.2.1. 128-bit Symmetric Key as Hex Encoded String
8e82e68e61654ecb5a369fe8be7572dd
A.2.2. 256-bit Symmetric Key as Hex Encoded String
403697de87af64611c1d32a05dab0fe1fcb715a86ab435f1ec99192d79569388
A.2.3. ECDSA P-256 256-bit COSE Key
a622582060f7f1a780d8a783bfb7a2dd6b2796e8128dbbcef9d3d168db952997
1a36e7b92358206c1382765aec5358f117733d281c1c7bdc39884d04a45a1e6c
67c858bc206c1903260102215820143329cce7868e416927599cf65a34f3ce2f
fda55a7eca69ed8919a394d42f0f2001
Figure 5: ECDSA 256-bit COSE Key as hex string
{
/ d / -4: h'6c1382765aec5358f117733d281c1c7bdc39884d04a45a1e
6c67c858bc206c19',
/ y / -3: h'60f7f1a780d8a783bfb7a2dd6b2796e8128dbbcef9d3d168
db9529971a36e7b9',
/ x / -2: h'143329cce7868e416927599cf65a34f3ce2ffda55a7eca69
ed8919a394d42f0f',
/ crv / -1: 1 / P-256 / ,
/ kty / 1: 2 / EC2 / ,
/ alg / 3: -7 / ECDSA 256 /
}
Figure 6: ECDSA 256-bit COSE Key in CBOR diagnostic notation
Jones, et al. Expires October 15, 2017 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft CBOR Web Token April 2017
A.3. Example Signed CWT
This section shows a signed CWT with a single recipient and a full
CWT Claims Set.
The signature is generated using the private key listed in
Appendix A.2.3 and it can be validated using the public key from
Appendix A.2.3. Line breaks are for display purposes only.
d28443a10126a05850a70175636f61703a2f2f61732e6578616d706c652e636f6
d02656572696b77037818636f61703a2f2f6c696768742e6578616d706c652e63
6f6d041a5612aeb0051a5610d9f0061a5610d9f007420b7158401fe410abce650
effed497f05d7f9462de67d571384097de0d96f1e2514d284cdd85634f269af6c
36c64f22e7691abb464bed2ff23176cdba9fd9e213f637d082
Figure 7: Signed CWT as hex string
18(
[
/ protected / h'a10126' / {
/ alg / 1: -7 / ECDSA 256 /
} / ,
/ unprotected / {},
/ payload / h'a70175636f61703a2f2f61732e6578616d706c652e63
6f6d02656572696b77037818636f61703a2f2f6c6967
68742e6578616d706c652e636f6d041a5612aeb0051a
5610d9f0061a5610d9f007420b71' / {
/ iss / 1: "coap://as.example.com",
/ sub / 2: "erikw",
/ aud / 3: "coap://light.example.com",
/ exp / 4: 1444064944,
/ nbf / 5: 1443944944,
/ iat / 6: 1443944944,
/ cti / 7: h'0b71'
} / ,
/ signature / h'1fe410abce650effed497f05d7f9462de67d571384
097de0d96f1e2514d284cdd85634f269af6c36c64f
22e7691abb464bed2ff23176cdba9fd9e213f637d0
82'
]
)
Figure 8: Signed CWT in CBOR diagnostic notation
Jones, et al. Expires October 15, 2017 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft CBOR Web Token April 2017
A.4. Example MACed CWT
This section shows a MACed CWT with a single recipient and a full CWT
Claims Set.
The MAC is generated using the 256-bit symmetric key from
Appendix A.2.2 with a 64-bit truncation. Line breaks are for display
purposes only.
d83dd18443a10104a05850a70175636f61703a2f2f61732e6578616d706c652e
636f6d02656572696b77037818636f61703a2f2f6c696768742e6578616d706c
652e636f6d041a5612aeb0051a5610d9f0061a5610d9f007420b7148093101ef
6d789200
Figure 9: MACed CWT with CWT tag as hex string
61(
17(
[
/ protected / h'a10104' / {
/ alg / 1: 4 / HMAC 256/64 /
} / ,
/ unprotected / {},
/ payload / h'a70175636f61703a2f2f61732e6578616d706c652e636f
6d02656572696b77037818636f61703a2f2f6c69676874
2e6578616d706c652e636f6d041a5612aeb0051a5610d9
f0061a5610d9f007420b71' / {
/ iss / 1: "coap://as.example.com",
/ sub / 2: "erikw",
/ aud / 3: "coap://light.example.com",
/ exp / 4: 1444064944,
/ nbf / 5: 1443944944,
/ iat / 6: 1443944944,
/ cti / 7: h'0b71'
} / ,
/ tag / h'093101ef6d789200'
]
)
)
Figure 10: MACed CWT with CWT tag in CBOR diagnostic notation
A.5. Example Encrypted CWT
This section shows an encrypted CWT with a single recipient and a
full CWT Claims Set.
Jones, et al. Expires October 15, 2017 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft CBOR Web Token April 2017
The encryption is done with AES-CCM mode using the 128-bit symmetric
key from Appendix A.2.1 with a 64-bit tag and 13-byte nonce, i.e.,
COSE AES-CCM-16-64-128. Line breaks are for display purposes only.
d08343a1010aa1054d3a869e378e72b77d077c29be025858d275ad9cd7df1b10
ba8cde785c74b1e1e6ada287e2baf1451b06862529b784d230b0111773b6c369
1319aec4dcc379fe47115a5d62632727c05f4567fc84dd79554db86676a14978
42de805d8be93180af4d6ff3043886a0
Figure 11: Encrypted CWT as hex string
16(
[
/ protected / h'a1010a' / {
/ alg / 1: 10 / AES-CCM-16-64-128 /
} /,
/ unprotected / {
/ iv / 5: h'3a869e378e72b77d077c29be02'
},
/ ciphertext / h'd275ad9cd7df1b10ba8cde785c74b1e1e6ada287e2b
af1451b06862529b784d230b0111773b6c3691319ae
c4dcc379fe47115a5d62632727c05f4567fc84dd795
54db86676a1497842de805d8be93180af4d6ff30438
86a0'
]
)
Figure 12: Encrypted CWT in CBOR diagnostic notation
A.6. Example Nested CWT
This section shows a Nested CWT, signed and then encrypted, with a
single recipient and a full CWT Claims Set.
The signature is generated using the private ECDSA key from
Appendix A.2.3 and it can be validated using the public ECDSA parts
from Appendix A.2.3. The encryption is done with AES-CCM mode using
the 128-bit symmetric key from Appendix A.2.1 with a 64-bit tag and
13-byte nonce, i.e., COSE AES-CCM-16-64-128. The content type is set
to CWT to indicate that there are multiple layers of COSE protection
before finding the CWT Claims Set. The decrypted ciphertext will be a
COSE_sign1 structure. In this example, it is the same one as in
Appendix A.3, i.e., a Signed CWT Claims Set. Note that there is no
limitation to the number of layers; this is an example with two
layers. Line breaks are for display purposes only.
Jones, et al. Expires October 15, 2017 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft CBOR Web Token April 2017
d08346a203183d010aa1054d9120e5dc42c9f9aec05ebe8a4858a538be026c02
4a40b19d6dbea3ddb18b31021f874a097a05ff3cdaa4665bafc8e46a3d7f37ad
f002fe57eee267f8f62a9c1621af75e1ecd742a3d801c2cc82358cf104a8d902
4d38a599ea6027d482dc2948a88fe83f9734804299c832401029e2d32a984789
c8e9563e8d2a751323bb7e4462b549e0fa89ef93f78bf6425635fba76b4aa804
7908e89b3b7c3d59d8a80e22f70a1b6ee8c162c564341c2f15cec252d3da038c
Figure 13: Signed and Encrypted CWT as hex string
16(
[
/ protected / h'a203183d010a' / {
/ content type / 3: 61, / CWT /
/ alg / 1: 10 / AES-CCM-16-64-128 /
} / ,
/ unprotected / {
/ iv / 5: h'9120e5dc42c9f9aec05ebe8a48'
},
/ ciphertext / h'38be026c024a40b19d6dbea3ddb18b31021f874a097
a05ff3cdaa4665bafc8e46a3d7f37adf002fe57eee2
67f8f62a9c1621af75e1ecd742a3d801c2cc82358cf
104a8d9024d38a599ea6027d482dc2948a88fe83f97
34804299c832401029e2d32a984789c8e9563e8d2a7
51323bb7e4462b549e0fa89ef93f78bf6425635fba7
6b4aa8047908e89b3b7c3d59d8a80e22f70a1b6ee8c
162c564341c2f15cec252d3da038c'
]
)
Figure 14: Signed and Encrypted CWT in CBOR diagnostic notation
Appendix B. Acknowledgements
This specification is based on JSON Web Token (JWT) [RFC7519], the
authors of which also include Nat Sakimura and John Bradley. Ludwig
Seitz and Goeran Selander have made contributions the specification.
Appendix C. Document History
[[ to be removed by the RFC Editor before publication as an RFC ]]
-04
o Specified that the use of CBOR tags to prefix any of the claim
values defined in this specification is NOT RECOMMENDED.
-03
Jones, et al. Expires October 15, 2017 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft CBOR Web Token April 2017
o Reworked the examples to include signed, MACed, encrypted, and
nested CWTs.
o Defined the CWT CBOR tag and explained its usage.
-02
o Added IANA registration for the application/cwt media type.
o Clarified the nested CWT language.
o Corrected nits identified by Ludwig Seitz.
-01
o Added IANA registration for CWT Claims.
o Added IANA registration for the application/cwt CoAP content-
format type.
o Added Samuel Erdtman as an editor.
o Changed Erik's e-mail address.
-00
o Created the initial working group version based on draft-
wahlstroem-ace-cbor-web-token-00.
Authors' Addresses
Michael B. Jones
Microsoft
Email: mbj@microsoft.com
URI: http://self-issued.info/
Erik Wahlstroem
Sweden
Email: erik@wahlstromstekniska.se
Samuel Erdtman
Spotify AB
Birger Jarlsgatan 61, 4tr
Stockholm 113 56
Sweden
Phone: +46702691499
Email: erdtman@spotify.com
Jones, et al. Expires October 15, 2017 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft CBOR Web Token April 2017
Hannes Tschofenig
ARM Ltd.
Hall in Tirol 6060
Austria
Email: Hannes.Tschofenig@arm.com
Jones, et al. Expires October 15, 2017 [Page 21]