From Idea to Standard: How the JWT Profile for OAuth 2.0 Access Tokens Became RFC9068
Tags: security, devops, discuss
Published: 2021-11-10 17:19:07

#### A first-person account of how modern open identity standards are made.

### <br>

OAuth 2 Core does not say what an access token (AT) should look like, only what it should be used for. Left to their own devices, the most important OAuth-based services and products chose to encode access tokens as JWTs. Without guidance from standards, however, they ended up producing as many incompatible variants.  
This article is the story of how this issue bugged me so much that I took it on myself to work with the IETF standards community to try fixing it, culminating in the publication of a new standard document describing how to encode and validate an OAuth 2.0 AT in JWT format.  
I am taking this opportunity to give you a glimpse of how the standardization process works, but most importantly: I hope this will show you that today anyone has the power to contribute to the community.

## Preamble: Why Are Issuers Encoding Access Tokens as JWTs?

In the first version of OAuth, the access token issuer and the resource-consuming it (service provider and the protected resource, respectively, in OAuth 1 parlance) were co-located: the consumer (old name for client) would request an access token from `https://photos.example.net/access\_token?..` and use it to access the resource at `http://photos.example.net/photo?..`.

OAuth 2 introduced better role separation, making it possible for the authorization server (AS) and resource server (RS) to live on different domains and be run by different owners. However, the scenario where AS and RS live together was still the quintessential use case, think Google issuing tokens to protect Google APIs.

When the token issuer and token consumer are essentially the same entity, validating tokens is an easy problem (see Figure 1). Say that a client asks and obtains delegated authorization to read your Google Calendar. At authorization request time, Google can write somewhere in its backend that you granted consent for that client, and return as AT the ID of the row where it recorded your preference. When the client wants to access the calendar, it just presents the AT to the API: the API turns around, looks up the ID in the DB it shares with the AS, and consults the record to decide whether to grant access. This is definitely oversimplified (and I have no insight on how google really does things, I just picked a relatable example) but should give a rough idea.

![Authorization](https://images.ctfassets.net/23aumh6u8s0i/IJRZvuawYe651McJaKsjP/92c105976b851db0c78c93ebc0cad3a7/Uploaded_from_From_Idea_to_Standard__How_the_JWT_Profile_for_OAuth_2)
_Figure 1: if authorization server and resource server are co-located, access tokens are easy to validate_

This trick clearly doesn’t work if the AS and RS are separate and don’t share any common state (figure 2). Just like it’s common for web apps to outsource authentication to a separate entity, it’s common for API to integrate with 3rd party services (such as IDaaS, local IdP software, etc) running elsewhere. And of course, APIs can be deployed anywhere (Lambda, Azure Functions, etc). The case in which AS and RS are separate is completely mainstream nowadays.

Imagine you are such an API. A caller sends you a request, including an AT allegedly indicating that they should be authorized to perform that request. Strictly adhering to the core spec, the AT is just an opaque blob. How are you going to determine whether you should serve the request?

![API](https://images.ctfassets.net/23aumh6u8s0i/5B0yuKwp0LC2pCHIic9gJa/325c4684cffbda80ce45df58d41064de/Uploaded_from_From_Idea_to_Standard__How_the_JWT_Profile_for_OAuth_2)
_Figure 2: if the authorization server and resource server are separate and distinct entities, the API needs an explicit strategy for validating access tokens._

Absent the luxury of shared state with the AS, you mostly have two alternatives: calling back the AS asking for help, or trying to make that determination by looking at the AT content. Neither approach were included in the core OAuth 2 specification.


[Read more...](https://auth0.com/blog/how-the-jwt-profile-for-oauth-20-access-tokens-became-rfc9068/?utm_source=content_synd&utm_medium=sc&utm_campaign=oauth)