--- 1/draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-09.txt 2017-12-17 16:13:11.247549423 -0800 +++ 2/draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-10.txt 2017-12-17 16:13:11.295550571 -0800 @@ -1,51 +1,51 @@ ACE Working Group M. Jones Internet-Draft Microsoft Intended status: Standards Track E. Wahlstroem -Expires: April 29, 2018 +Expires: June 20, 2018 S. Erdtman Spotify AB H. Tschofenig ARM Ltd. - October 26, 2017 + December 17, 2017 CBOR Web Token (CWT) - draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-09 + draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-10 Abstract CBOR Web Token (CWT) is a compact means of representing claims to be transferred between two parties. 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. CWT is derived from JSON Web Token - (JWT), but uses CBOR rather than JSON. + (JWT) but uses CBOR rather than JSON. 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 April 29, 2018. + This Internet-Draft will expire on June 20, 2018. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2017 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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents @@ -60,47 +60,47 @@ 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. CBOR Related Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. Registered Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1.1. iss (Issuer) Claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 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 + 3.1.6. iat (Issued At) Claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1.7. cti (CWT ID) Claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Summary of the claim names, keys, and value types . . . . . . 6 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. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9.1. CBOR Web Token (CWT) Claims Registry . . . . . . . . . . 10 9.1.1. Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9.1.2. Initial Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9.2. Media Type Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 9.2.1. Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 9.3. CoAP Content-Formats Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 9.3.1. Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 9.3.1. Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9.4. CBOR Tag registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9.4.1. Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Appendix A. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 - A.1. Example CWT Claims Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 + A.1. Example CWT Claims Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 A.2. Example keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 A.2.1. 128-bit Symmetric Key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - A.2.2. 256-bit Symmetric Key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 + A.2.2. 256-bit Symmetric Key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 A.2.3. ECDSA P-256 256-bit COSE Key . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 A.3. Example Signed CWT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 A.4. Example MACed CWT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 A.5. Example Encrypted CWT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 A.6. Example Nested CWT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 A.7. Example MACed CWT with a floating-point value . . . . . . 21 Appendix B. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Appendix C. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 @@ -133,29 +133,30 @@ In JSON, maps are called objects and only have one kind of map key: a string. CBOR uses strings, negative integers, and unsigned integers as map keys. The integers are used for compactness of encoding and easy comparison. The inclusion of strings allows for an additional range of short encoded values to be used. 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]. + "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. This document reuses terminology from JWT [RFC7519] and COSE [RFC8152]. StringOrURI The "StringOrURI" term has the same meaning, syntax, and - processing rules as the "StringOrUri" term defined in Section 2 of + processing rules as the "StringOrURI" term defined in Section 2 of JWT [RFC7519], except that it uses a CBOR 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 the CBOR numeric date representation (from Section 2.4.1 of [RFC7049]) is used. The encoding is modified so that the leading tag 1 (epoch-based date/time) MUST be omitted. @@ -204,22 +205,24 @@ 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 value is of type StringOrURI. The Claim Key 2 is 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 value is of type StringOrURI. The Claim - Key 3 is used to identify this claim. + [RFC7519], except that the value of the audience claim is of type + StringOrURI when it is not an array or the values of the audience + array elements are of type StringOrURI when the audience claim value + is an array. The Claim Key 3 is 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 value is of type NumericDate. The Claim Key 4 is used to identify this claim. 3.1.5. nbf (Not Before) Claim @@ -225,46 +228,45 @@ 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 value is of type NumericDate. The Claim Key 5 is 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 value is of type NumericDate. The Claim Key 6 is 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 value is of type binary string. The Claim Key 7 is + except that the value is of type byte string. The Claim Key 7 is used to identify this claim. 4. Summary of the claim names, keys, and value types - /---------+-----+----------------------------------\ + +------+-----+----------------------------------+ | Name | Key | Value type | - |---------+-----+----------------------------------| + +------+-----+----------------------------------+ | iss | 1 | text string | | sub | 2 | text string | | aud | 3 | text string | | exp | 4 | integer or floating-point number | | nbf | 5 | integer or floating-point number | | iat | 6 | integer or floating-point number | - | cti | 7 | binary string | - \---------+-----+----------------------------------/ + | cti | 7 | byte string | + +------+-----+----------------------------------+ - Figure 1: Summary of the claim names, keys, and value types + Table 1: Summary of the claim names, keys, and value types 5. CBOR Tags and Claim Values The claim values defined in this specification MUST NOT be prefixed with any CBOR tag. For instance, while CBOR tag 1 (epoch-based date/ time) 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, this does not prohibit future claim @@ -275,34 +277,34 @@ 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 + 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. / CWT CBOR tag / 61( / COSE_Mac0 CBOR tag / 17( / COSE_Mac0 object / ) ) - Figure 2: Example of a CWT tag usage + Figure 1: 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. @@ -327,28 +329,28 @@ specified in [RFC8152] 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 [RFC8152] 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, add the matching COSE - CBOR tag, and return to Step 3. + performed, let the Message be the tagged COSE_Sign/COSE_Sign1, + COSE_Mac/COSE_Mac0, or COSE_Encrypt/COSE_Encrypt0, and return to + Step 3. - 6. If needed by the application, add the appropriate COSE CBOR tag - to the COSE object to indicate the type of the COSE object. If - needed by the application, add the CWT CBOR tag to indicate that - the COSE object is a CWT. + 6. If needed by the application, prepend the COSE object with the + appropriate COSE CBOR tag to indicate the type of the COSE + object. If needed by the application, prepend the COSE object + with 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. @@ -553,21 +556,21 @@ o Claim Key: 6 o Claim Value Type(s): integer or floating-point number 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 Claim Key: 7 - o Claim Value Type(s): binary string + o Claim Value Type(s): byte string o Change Controller: IESG 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. @@ -655,20 +658,24 @@ October 2013, . [RFC7519] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token (JWT)", RFC 7519, DOI 10.17487/RFC7519, May 2015, . [RFC8152] Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)", RFC 8152, DOI 10.17487/RFC8152, July 2017, . + [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC + 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, + May 2017, . + 10.2. Informative References [IANA.JWT.Claims] IANA, "JSON Web Token Claims", . [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226, DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, . @@ -697,122 +704,122 @@ Where a byte string is to carry an embedded CBOR-encoded item, the diagnostic notation for this CBOR data item can be enclosed in '<<' and '>>' to notate the byte string resulting from encoding the data item, e.g., h'63666F6F' translates to <<"foo">>. 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. + Claims Set is the CBOR encoding as a byte string. a70175636f61703a2f2f61732e6578616d706c652e636f6d02656572696b7703 7818636f61703a2f2f6c696768742e6578616d706c652e636f6d041a5612aeb0 051a5610d9f0061a5610d9f007420b71 - Figure 3: Example CWT Claims Set as hex string + Figure 2: Example CWT Claims Set as hex string { / 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 + Figure 3: 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 a42050231f4c4d4d3051fdc2ec0a3851d5b3830104024c53796d6d6574726963 313238030a - Figure 5: 128-bit symmetric COSE_Key as hex string + Figure 4: 128-bit symmetric COSE_Key as hex string { / k / -1: h'231f4c4d4d3051fdc2ec0a3851d5b383' / kty / 1: 4 / Symmetric /, / kid / 2: h'53796d6d6574726963313238' / 'Symmetric128' /, / alg / 3: 10 / AES-CCM-16-64-128 / } - Figure 6: 128-bit symmetric COSE_Key in CBOR diagnostic notation + Figure 5: 128-bit symmetric COSE_Key in CBOR diagnostic notation A.2.2. 256-bit Symmetric Key a4205820403697de87af64611c1d32a05dab0fe1fcb715a86ab435f1ec99192d 795693880104024c53796d6d6574726963323536030a - Figure 7: 256-bit symmetric COSE_Key as hex string + Figure 6: 256-bit symmetric COSE_Key as hex string { / k / -1: h'403697de87af64611c1d32a05dab0fe1fcb715a86ab435f1 ec99192d79569388' / kty / 1: 4 / Symmetric /, / kid / 4: h'53796d6d6574726963323536' / 'Symmetric256' /, / alg / 3: 4 / HMAC 256/64 / } - Figure 8: 256-bit symmetric COSE_Key in CBOR diagnostic notation + Figure 7: 256-bit symmetric COSE_Key in CBOR diagnostic notation A.2.3. ECDSA P-256 256-bit COSE Key a72358206c1382765aec5358f117733d281c1c7bdc39884d04a45a1e6c67c858 bc206c1922582060f7f1a780d8a783bfb7a2dd6b2796e8128dbbcef9d3d168db 9529971a36e7b9215820143329cce7868e416927599cf65a34f3ce2ffda55a7e ca69ed8919a394d42f0f2001010202524173796d6d6574726963454344534132 35360326 - Figure 9: ECDSA 256-bit COSE Key as hex string + Figure 8: 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 /, / kid / 2: h'4173796d6d657472696345434453413 23536' / 'AsymmetricECDSA256' /, / alg / 3: -7 / ECDSA 256 / } - Figure 10: ECDSA 256-bit COSE Key in CBOR diagnostic notation + Figure 9: ECDSA 256-bit COSE Key in CBOR diagnostic notation 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. d28443a10126a104524173796d6d657472696345434453413235365850a701756 36f61703a2f2f61732e6578616d706c652e636f6d02656572696b77037818636f 61703a2f2f6c696768742e6578616d706c652e636f6d041a5612aeb0051a5610d 9f0061a5610d9f007420b7158405427c1ff28d23fbad1f29c4c7c6a555e601d6f a29f9179bc3d7438bacaca5acd08c8d4d4f96131680c429a01f85951ecee743a5 2b9b63632c57209120e1c9e30 - Figure 11: Signed CWT as hex string + Figure 10: Signed CWT as hex string 18( [ / protected / << { / alg / 1: -7 / ECDSA 256 / } >>, / unprotected / { / kid / 4: h'4173796d6d657472696345434453413 23536' / 'AsymmetricECDSA256' / }, @@ -825,37 +832,37 @@ / iat / 6: 1443944944, / cti / 7: h'0b71' } >>, / signature / h'5427c1ff28d23fbad1f29c4c7c6a555e601d6fa29f 9179bc3d7438bacaca5acd08c8d4d4f96131680c42 9a01f85951ecee743a52b9b63632c57209120e1c9e 30' ] ) - Figure 12: Signed CWT in CBOR diagnostic notation + Figure 11: Signed CWT in CBOR diagnostic notation A.4. Example MACed CWT This section shows a MACed CWT with a single recipient, a full CWT Claims Set, and a CWT tag. 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. d83dd18443a10104a1044c53796d6d65747269633235365850a70175636f6170 3a2f2f61732e6578616d706c652e636f6d02656572696b77037818636f61703a 2f2f6c696768742e6578616d706c652e636f6d041a5612aeb0051a5610d9f006 1a5610d9f007420b7148093101ef6d789200 - Figure 13: MACed CWT with CWT tag as hex string + Figure 12: MACed CWT with CWT tag as hex string 61( 17( [ / protected / << { / alg / 1: 4 / HMAC-256-64 / } >>, / unprotected / { / kid / 4: h'53796d6d6574726963323536' / 'Symmetric256' / }, @@ -866,56 +873,56 @@ / exp / 4: 1444064944, / nbf / 5: 1443944944, / iat / 6: 1443944944, / cti / 7: h'0b71' } >>, / tag / h'093101ef6d789200' ] ) ) - Figure 14: MACed CWT with CWT tag in CBOR diagnostic notation + Figure 13: 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. 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. d08343a1010aa2044c53796d6d6574726963313238054d99a0d7846e762c49ff e8a63e0b5858b918a11fd81e438b7f973d9e2e119bcb22424ba0f38a80f27562 f400ee1d0d6c0fdb559c02421fd384fc2ebe22d7071378b0ea7428fff157444d 45f7e6afcda1aae5f6495830c58627087fc5b4974f319a8707a635dd643b - Figure 15: Encrypted CWT as hex string + Figure 14: Encrypted CWT as hex string 16( [ / protected / << { / alg / 1: 10 / AES-CCM-16-64-128 / } >>, / unprotected / { / kid / 4: h'53796d6d6574726963313238' / 'Symmetric128' /, / iv / 5: h'99a0d7846e762c49ffe8a63e0b' }, / ciphertext / h'b918a11fd81e438b7f973d9e2e119bcb22424ba0f38 a80f27562f400ee1d0d6c0fdb559c02421fd384fc2e be22d7071378b0ea7428fff157444d45f7e6afcda1a ae5f6495830c58627087fc5b4974f319a8707a635dd 643b' ] ) - Figure 16: Encrypted CWT in CBOR diagnostic notation + Figure 15: 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 @@ -928,21 +935,21 @@ layers. Line breaks are for display purposes only. d08343a1010aa2044c53796d6d6574726963313238054d4a0694c0e69ee6b595 6655c7b258b7f6b0914f993de822cc47e5e57a188d7960b528a747446fe12f0e 7de05650dec74724366763f167a29c002dfd15b34d8993391cf49bc91127f545 dba8703d66f5b7f1ae91237503d371e6333df9708d78c4fb8a8386c8ff09dc49 af768b23179deab78d96490a66d5724fb33900c60799d9872fac6da3bdb89043 d67c2a05414ce331b5b8f1ed8ff7138f45905db2c4d5bc8045ab372bff142631 610a7e0f677b7e9b0bc73adefdcee16d9d5d284c616abeab5d8c291ce0 - Figure 17: Signed and Encrypted CWT as hex string + Figure 16: Signed and Encrypted CWT as hex string 16( [ / protected / << { / alg / 1: 10 / AES-CCM-16-64-128 / } >>, / unprotected / { / kid / 4: h'53796d6d6574726963313238' / 'Symmetric128' /, / iv / 5: h'86bbd41cc32604396324b7f380' }, @@ -951,83 +958,93 @@ fd15b34d8993391cf49bc91127f545dba8703d66f5b 7f1ae91237503d371e6333df9708d78c4fb8a8386c8 ff09dc49af768b23179deab78d96490a66d5724fb33 900c60799d9872fac6da3bdb89043d67c2a05414ce3 31b5b8f1ed8ff7138f45905db2c4d5bc8045ab372bf f142631610a7e0f677b7e9b0bc73adefdcee16d9d5d 284c616abeab5d8c291ce0' ] ) - Figure 18: Signed and Encrypted CWT in CBOR diagnostic notation + Figure 17: Signed and Encrypted CWT in CBOR diagnostic notation A.7. Example MACed CWT with a floating-point value This section shows a MACed CWT with a single recipient and a simple CWT Claims Set. The CWT Claims Set with a floating-point 'iat' value. 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. d18443a10104a1044c53796d6d65747269633235364ba106fb41d584367c2000 0048b8816f34c0542892 - Figure 19: MACed CWT with a floating-point value as hex string + Figure 18: MACed CWT with a floating-point value as hex string 17( [ / protected / << { / alg / 1: 4 / HMAC-256-64 / } >>, / unprotected / { / kid / 4: h'53796d6d6574726963323536' / 'Symmetric256' /, }, / payload / << { / iat / 6: 1443944944.5 } >>, / tag / h'b8816f34c0542892' ] ) - Figure 20: MACed CWT with a floating-point value in CBOR diagnostic + Figure 19: MACed CWT with a floating-point value 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. It also - incorporates suggestions made by many people, notably Carsten - Bormann, Jim Schaad, Ludwig Seitz, and Goeran Selander. + incorporates suggestions made by many people, including Carsten + Bormann, Esko Dijk, Jim Schaad, Ludwig Seitz, and Goeran Selander. Appendix C. Document History [[ to be removed by the RFC Editor before publication as an RFC ]] + -10 + + o Clarified that the audience claim value can be a single audience + value or an array of audience values, just as is the case for the + JWT "aud" claim. + + o Clarified the nested CWT description. + + o Changed uses of "binary string" to "byte string". + -09 o Added key ID values to the examples. o Key values for the examples are now represented in COSE_Key format using CBOR diagnostic notation. -08 - o Updated the diagnostic notation for embedded objects in the examples, addressing feedback by Carsten Bormann. -07 o Updated examples for signing and encryption. Signatures are now deterministic as recommended by COSE specification. -06 + o Addressed review comments by Carsten Bormann and Jim Schaad. All changes were editorial in nature. -05 o Addressed working group last call comments with the following changes: o Say that CWT is derived from JWT, rather than CWT is a profile of JWT.