Clarify signing and encryption of JARM responses #243
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
selfissued
requested review from
jogu,
tlodderstedt,
peppelinux,
tplooker,
awoie,
Sakurann and
bc-pi
peppelinux
approved these changes
Sep 4, 2024
c2bo
approved these changes
Sep 5, 2024
awoie
requested changes
Sep 5, 2024
awoie
approved these changes
Sep 5, 2024
Sakurann
requested changes
Sep 5, 2024
| @@ -708,7 +708,7 @@ Note: In the Response Mode `direct_post` or `direct_post.jwt`, the Wallet can ch | |||
|
|
|||
| This section defines how Authorization Response containing a VP Token can be signed and/or encrypted at the application level when the Response Type value is `vp_token` or `vp_token id_token`. Encrypting the Authorization Response can prevent personal data in the Authorization Response from leaking, when the Authorization Response is returned through the front channel (e.g., the browser). | |||
|
|
|||
| To sign, or sign and encrypt the Authorization Response, implementations MAY use JWT Secured Authorization Response Mode for OAuth 2.0 (JARM) [@!JARM]. | |||
| To sign, or both sign and encrypt the Authorization Response as a Nested JWT [@!RFC7519], implementations MUST use the JWT Secured Authorization Response Mode for OAuth 2.0 (JARM) [@!JARM]. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| To sign, or both sign and encrypt the Authorization Response as a Nested JWT [@!RFC7519], implementations MUST use the JWT Secured Authorization Response Mode for OAuth 2.0 (JARM) [@!JARM]. | |
| To sign, encrypt, or both sign and encrypt the Authorization Response, implementations MUST use the JWT Secured Authorization Response Mode for OAuth 2.0 (JARM) [@!JARM] and its extension defined in this section. |
without this, this PR does not solve the original issue. and nested jwt here feels redundant and confusing.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm I guess it made sense to me with the next sentence describing the "special" mode for encryption without signing but I would agree that @Sakurann's suggestion makes it clearer.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this sentence is actually getting more confusing. Kristina's suggestion now says you must use the extension in this section when you're just signing a response, which would not be correct.
I would leave the scope of this sentence at dealing with the signed or signed+encrypted cases only.
Co-authored-by: Oliver Terbu <[email protected]>
jogu
approved these changes
Sep 10, 2024
Sakurann
approved these changes
Sep 11, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes #216