RFC 8392

CBOR Web Token (CWT)

📅 published May 2018, from ietf

RFC 8392: CBOR Web Token (CWT) 🎀

Okay bestie, this is RFC 8392, and it's a Standards Track doc, so it's the real deal, not a draft that's still figuring itself out 💅 Here's the header info you need:

Number: RFC 8392
Title: CBOR Web Token (CWT)
Authors: M. Jones (Microsoft), E. Wahlstroem, S. Erdtman (Spotify AB), and H. Tschofenig (ARM Ltd.)
Category: Standards Track
ISSN: 2070-1721
Date: May 2018
Obsoletes / Updates: the header doesn't list anything it obsoletes or updates 🌸

Abstract ✨

Okay so, CBOR Web Token (CWT) is a compact way to represent claims that get passed between two parties 🦋 The claims are encoded in the Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR), and CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) adds application-layer security on top. A claim is a piece of information asserted about a subject, and it's stored as a name/value pair made of a claim name and a claim value. CWT is derived from JSON Web Token (JWT), but it uses CBOR instead of JSON. It's giving efficient and secure 🔥

Status of This Memo 📜

This is an Internet Standards Track document. Literally the official kind 💖

This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community, received public review, and was approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). If you want more on Internet Standards, check out Section 2 of RFC 7841.

Info about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to send feedback is at https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8392.

Copyright Notice 🔐

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) as in effect on the date of publication. Please read these carefully, because they describe your rights and restrictions for 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 they come without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents 🗺️

1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
  1.1.  CBOR-Related Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
3.  Claims  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
  3.1.  Registered Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
    3.1.1.  iss (Issuer) Claim  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
    3.1.2.  sub (Subject) Claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
    3.1.3.  aud (Audience) Claim  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
    3.1.4.  exp (Expiration Time) Claim . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
    3.1.5.  nbf (Not Before) Claim  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
    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 . . . . . .   7
5.  CBOR Tags and Claim Values  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
6.  CWT CBOR Tag  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
7.  Creating and Validating CWTs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
  7.1.  Creating a CWT  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
  7.2.  Validating a CWT  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
  9.1.  CBOR Web Token (CWT) Claims Registry  . . . . . . . . . .  11
    9.1.1.  Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
    9.1.2.  Initial Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
  9.2.  Media Type Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
    9.2.1.  Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
  9.3.  CoAP Content-Formats Registration . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
    9.3.1.  Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
  9.4.  CBOR Tag registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
    9.4.1.  Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
  10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
  10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
Appendix A.  Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
  A.1.  Example CWT Claims Set  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
  A.2.  Example Keys  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
    A.2.1.  128-Bit Symmetric Key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
    A.2.2.  256-Bit Symmetric Key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
    A.2.3.  Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA)
            P-256 256-Bit COSE Key  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
  A.3.  Example Signed CWT  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
  A.4.  Example MACed CWT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
  A.5.  Example Encrypted CWT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
  A.6.  Example Nested CWT  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
  A.7.  Example MACed CWT with a Floating-Point Value . . . . . .  23
Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25

1. Introduction ✨

Okay so, JSON Web Token (JWT) [RFC7519] is a standardized security token format that's been a big hit in OAuth 2.0 and OpenID Connect deployments, plus other apps 🌈 JWT uses JSON Web Signature (JWS) [RFC7515] and JSON Web Encryption (JWE) [RFC7516] to protect its contents, which is a set of claims written in JSON. JSON is hugely popular for Web and native apps, but it's considered inefficient for some Internet of Things (IoT) systems that run on low-power radio technologies 🙈

So this document offers a different encoding for claims. Instead of JSON, it uses CBOR [RFC7049] and names the new structure "CBOR Web Token (CWT)". It's a compact way to represent secured claims passed between two parties 🦋 CWT is closely related to JWT. It references the JWT claims, and both its name and its pronunciation come from JWT (the suggested pronunciation of CWT is the same as the English word "cot") 💜 To protect the claims in CWTs, this spec uses the CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) [RFC8152] specification.

In JSON, maps are called objects, and they 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 compact encoding and easy comparison, and the strings allow an extra 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 BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. Lowercase versions don't count, bestie 💅

This document reuses terminology from JWT [RFC7519] and COSE [RFC8152].

StringOrURI The "StringOrURI" term in this specification has the same meaning and processing rules as the JWT "StringOrURI" term defined in Section 2 of [RFC7519], except that it is represented as a CBOR text string instead of a JSON text string.

NumericDate The "NumericDate" term in this specification has the same meaning and processing rules as the JWT "NumericDate" term defined in Section 2 of [RFC7519], except that it is represented as a CBOR numeric date (from Section 2.4.1 of [RFC7049]) instead of a JSON number. The encoding is modified so that the leading tag 1 (epoch-based date/time) MUST be omitted. Yes, the tag is gone, it's giving minimalism 🫶

Claim Name The human-readable name used to identify a claim.

Claim Key The CBOR map key used to identify a claim.

Claim Value The CBOR map value representing the value of the claim.

CWT Claims Set The 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. Ignored, not rejected, so no drama 🙈

To keep CWTs as small as possible, the Claim Keys are represented using integers or text strings. Section 4 summarizes all keys used to identify the claims defined in this document.

3.1. Registered Claims 🎀

None of the claims defined below are intended to be mandatory to use or implement. Rather, they're 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 and processing rules as the iss claim defined in Section 4.1.1 of [RFC7519], except that the value is a StringOrURI, as defined in Section 2 of this specification. The Claim Key 1 is used to identify this claim.

3.1.2. sub (Subject) Claim 🦋

The sub (subject) claim has the same meaning and processing rules as the sub claim defined in Section 4.1.2 of [RFC7519], except that the value is a StringOrURI, as defined in Section 2 of this specification. The Claim Key 2 is used to identify this claim.

3.1.3. aud (Audience) Claim 👑

The aud (audience) claim has the same meaning and processing rules as the aud claim defined in Section 4.1.3 of [RFC7519], except that the value of the audience claim is a StringOrURI when it is not an array, or each of the audience array element values is a StringOrURI when the audience claim value is an array. (StringOrURI is defined in Section 2 of this specification.) 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 and processing rules as the exp claim defined in Section 4.1.4 of [RFC7519], except that the value is a NumericDate, as defined in Section 2 of this specification. The Claim Key 4 is used to identify this claim.

3.1.5. nbf (Not Before) Claim 🌙

The nbf (not before) claim has the same meaning and processing rules as the nbf claim defined in Section 4.1.5 of [RFC7519], except that the value is a NumericDate, as defined in Section 2 of this specification. 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 and processing rules as the iat claim defined in Section 4.1.6 of [RFC7519], except that the value is a NumericDate, as defined in Section 2 of this specification. The Claim Key 6 is used to identify this claim.

That's part 1 done, bestie 🎀 The rest is coming next, so stay tuned 🧚💅

3.1.7. cti (CWT ID) Claim 🪪

okay so the "cti" (CWT ID) claim is basically the twin of "jti" 🦋 It has the same meaning and the same processing rules as the "jti" claim from Section 4.1.7 of [RFC7519]. The only difference is that its value is a byte string. Claim Key 7 is the key that identifies it 💖

4. Summary of the Claim Names, Keys, and Value Types 📋

bestie, here's the cheat sheet ✨ every claim name, its key number, and what kind of value it can hold:

+------+-----+----------------------------------+
| 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   | byte string                      |
+------+-----+----------------------------------+

Table 1: Summary of the Claim Names, Keys, and Value Types

5. CBOR Tags and Claim Values 🏷️

okay this part is a big deal 🚨 The claim values defined in this specification MUST NOT be prefixed with any CBOR tag. For instance, CBOR tag 1 (epoch-based date/time) could logically be prefixed to values of the "exp", "nbf", and "iat" claims. But that's 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 any information. However, this does not stop future claim definitions from requiring the use of CBOR tags for those specific claims 🫶

6. CWT CBOR Tag 🎀

How to tell that a CBOR data structure is a CWT is application dependent 🤷‍♀️ Sometimes the app already knows from context, like when the spot in a data structure has to hold a CWT. One way to say "this CBOR object is a CWT" is to use the "application/cwt" content type in a transport protocol.

This section defines the CWT CBOR tag as another way for apps to declare that a CBOR data structure is a CWT 🧚 Using it is optional, and it's meant for cases where that info wouldn't 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, and the actual COSE_Mac0 object has been left out 🙈

   / CWT CBOR tag / 61(
     / COSE_Mac0 CBOR tag / 17(
       / COSE_Mac0 object /
     )
   )

Figure 1: Example of CWT Tag Usage

7. Creating and Validating CWTs 🛠️

7.1. Creating a CWT ✍️

okay here's how you make one, step by step 💅 The order of the steps doesn't matter when there are no dependencies between the inputs and outputs of the steps.

Create a CWT Claims Set containing the desired claims.
Let the Message be the binary representation of the CWT Claims Set.
Create a COSE Header containing the desired set of Header Parameters. The COSE Header MUST be valid per the [RFC8152] specification.
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 [RFC8152] 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 [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.
If a nested signing, MACing, or encryption operation will be 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.
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, these steps happen 🧠 Again, the order doesn't matter when 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, meaning the application treats it as invalid input. no cap, this is a hard stop 🚫

Verify that the CWT is a valid CBOR object.
If the object begins with the CWT CBOR tag, remove it and verify that one of the COSE CBOR tags follows it.
If the object is tagged with one of the COSE CBOR tags, remove it and use it to determine the type of the CWT: COSE_Sign/COSE_Sign1, COSE_Mac/COSE_Mac0, or COSE_Encrypt/COSE_Encrypt0. If the object does not have a COSE CBOR tag, the COSE message type is determined from the application context.
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.
Depending upon whether the CWT is a signed, MACed, or encrypted object, there are three cases:
- If the CWT is a COSE_Sign/COSE_Sign1, follow the steps specified in Section 4 of [RFC8152] ("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 Section 6 of [RFC8152] ("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 Section 5 of [RFC8152] ("Encryption Objects") for validating a COSE_Encrypt/COSE_Encrypt0 object. Let the Message be the resulting plaintext.
If the Message begins with a COSE CBOR tag, then the Message is a CWT that was the subject of nested signing, MACing, or encryption operations. In this case, return to Step 1, using the Message as the CWT.
Verify that the Message is a valid CBOR map. Let the CWT Claims Set be this CBOR map.

8. Security Considerations 🚨

okay this section is SERIOUS, so please read it 😭 The security of the CWT relies on the protections offered by COSE. Unless the claims in a CWT are protected, an adversary can modify, add, or remove claims. that's a whole mess 💀

Since the claims in a CWT may be used to make authorization decisions, it's not only important to protect the CWT in transit. It's also important to make sure the recipient can authenticate the party that assembled the claims and created the CWT. Without the recipient trusting 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 before including it in the CWT, so the recipient can be sure the information is valid 🔐

Syntactically, the signing and encryption operations for Nested CWTs may be applied in any order. However, if both signing and encryption are necessary, producers normally should sign the message and then encrypt the result, which means the signature gets encrypted too 🙌 This prevents attacks in which the signature is stripped, leaving just an encrypted message, and it also gives the signer privacy. Furthermore, signatures over encrypted text are not considered valid in many jurisdictions ⚖️

9. IANA Considerations 📚

9.1. CBOR Web Token (CWT) Claims Registry 🗂️

IANA has created the "CBOR Web Token (CWT) Claims" registry [IANA.CWT.Claims].

Registration requests are evaluated using the criteria described in the Claim Key instructions in the registration template below. This happens after a three-week review period on the cwt-reg-review@ietf.org mailing list, based on the advice of one or more Designated Experts [RFC8126]. However, so values can be allocated before publication, the Designated Experts may approve a registration once they're satisfied that the specification will be published ✨

Registration requests sent to the mailing list for review should use an appropriate subject (e.g., "Request to register claim: example"). Registration requests that are undetermined for longer than 21 days can be brought to the IESG's attention (using the iesg@ietf.org mailing list) for resolution.

The Designated Experts should apply these criteria: whether the proposed registration duplicates existing functionality, whether it's likely to be of general applicability or only useful for a single application, and whether the registration description is clear. Registrations for the limited set of values between -256 and 255, and strings of length 1, are to be restricted to claims with general applicability 💅

IANA must only accept registry updates from the Designated Experts, and should direct all requests for registration to the review mailing list.

It is suggested that multiple Designated Experts be appointed who can represent the perspectives of different applications using this specification. That way the review of registration decisions is broadly informed 🌈 In cases where a registration decision could be seen as creating a conflict of interest for a particular Expert, that Expert should defer to the judgment of the other Experts.

Since a high degree of overlap is expected between the contents of the "CBOR Web Token (CWT) Claims" registry and the "JSON Web Token Claims" registry, overlap in the corresponding pools of Designated Experts would be useful. It helps keep an appropriate level of coordination between the registries 🫶

9.1.1. Registration Template 📝

okay bestie, this is the form every new CWT claim has to fill out to get registered 💅 here's what goes in each box:

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".
Claim Key: CBOR map key for the claim. Different ranges of values use different registration policies [RFC8126]. Integer values from -256 to 255 and strings of length 1 are designated as Standards Action. Integer values from -65536 to -257 and from 256 to 65535 along with strings of length 2 are designated as Specification Required. Integer values greater than 65535 and strings of length greater than 2 are designated as Expert Review. Integer values less than -65536 are marked as Private Use. 🔑
Claim Value Type(s): CBOR types that can be used for the claim value.
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 🎀

these are the claims that get registered from day one, so here's the whole starter pack 🧚

o  Claim Name: (RESERVED)
o  Claim Description: This registration reserves the key value 0.
o  JWT Claim Name: N/A
o  Claim Key: 0
o  Claim Value Type(s): N/A
o  Change Controller: IESG
o  Specification Document(s): [RFC8392]
o  Claim Name: iss
o  Claim Description: Issuer
o  JWT Claim Name: iss
o  Claim Key: 1
o  Claim Value Type(s): text string
o  Change Controller: IESG
o  Specification Document(s): Section 3.1.1 of [RFC8392]

o  Claim Name: sub
o  Claim Description: Subject
o  JWT Claim Name: sub
o  Claim Key: 2
o  Claim Value Type(s): text string
o  Change Controller: IESG
o  Specification Document(s): Section 3.1.2 of [RFC8392]

o  Claim Name: aud
o  Claim Description: Audience
o  JWT Claim Name: aud
o  Claim Key: 3
o  Claim Value Type(s): text string
o  Change Controller: IESG
o  Specification Document(s): Section 3.1.3 of [RFC8392]

o  Claim Name: exp
o  Claim Description: Expiration Time
o  JWT Claim Name: exp
o  Claim Key: 4
o  Claim Value Type(s): integer or floating-point number
o  Change Controller: IESG
o  Specification Document(s): Section 3.1.4 of [RFC8392]

o  Claim Name: nbf
o  Claim Description: Not Before
o  JWT Claim Name: nbf
o  Claim Key: 5
o  Claim Value Type(s): integer or floating-point number
o  Change Controller: IESG
o  Specification Document(s): Section 3.1.5 of [RFC8392]

o  Claim Name: iat
o  Claim Description: Issued At
o  JWT Claim Name: iat
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 [RFC8392]
o  Claim Name: cti
o  Claim Description: CWT ID
o  JWT Claim Name: jti
o  Claim Key: 7
o  Claim Value Type(s): byte string
o  Change Controller: IESG
o  Specification Document(s): Section 3.1.7 of [RFC8392]

9.2. Media Type Registration 💌

IANA has registered 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 [RFC8392]
o  Interoperability considerations: N/A
o  Published specification: [RFC8392]
o  Applications that use this media type: IoT applications sending
   security tokens over HTTP(S), CoAP(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 🦋

IANA has registered 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: 61
o  Reference: [RFC8392]

9.4. CBOR Tag registration 🏷️

IANA has registered the CWT CBOR tag in the "CBOR Tags" registry [IANA.CBOR.Tags].

9.4.1. Registry Contents

o  CBOR Tag: 61
o  Data Item: CBOR Web Token (CWT)
o  Semantics: CBOR Web Token (CWT), as defined in [RFC8392]
o  Reference: [RFC8392]
o  Point of Contact: Michael B.  Jones, mbj@microsoft.com

10. References 📚

10.1. Normative References

[IANA.CBOR.Tags] IANA, "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags", <http://www.iana.org/assignments/cbor-tags/>.
[IANA.CoAP.Content-Formats] IANA, "CoAP Content-Formats", <https://www.iana.org/assignments/core-parameters/>.
[IANA.CWT.Claims] IANA, "CBOR Web Token (CWT) Claims", <http://www.iana.org/assignments/cwt>.
[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, <https://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, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7049>.
[RFC7519] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token (JWT)", RFC 7519, DOI 10.17487/RFC7519, May 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7519>.
[RFC8152] Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)", RFC 8152, DOI 10.17487/RFC8152, July 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8152>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

10.2. Informative References

[IANA.JWT.Claims] IANA, "JSON Web Token Claims", <http://www.iana.org/assignments/jwt>.
[RFC6838] Freed, N., Klensin, J., and T. Hansen, "Media Type Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 6838, DOI 10.17487/RFC6838, January 2013, <https://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, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7515>.
[RFC7516] Jones, M. and J. Hildebrand, "JSON Web Encryption (JWE)", RFC 7516, DOI 10.17487/RFC7516, May 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7516>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

Appendix A. Examples 🎀

this appendix is a bunch of CWT examples showing how a CWT Claims Set can be protected 🧁 there are signed ones, MACed ones, encrypted ones, and ones with nested signing and encryption. to make them easier to read, they're shown as hex strings AND in the extended CBOR diagnostic notation from Section 6 of [RFC7049] 🤓

when a byte string needs to carry an embedded CBOR-encoded item, you can wrap that item's diagnostic notation in << and >> to show the byte string you get from encoding it. so h'63666F6F' translates to <<"foo">>. iykyk 💜

A.1. Example CWT Claims Set

the CWT Claims Set used in these examples shows off every single defined claim 🤩 for the signed and MACed examples, the CWT Claims Set is the CBOR encoding as a byte string.

a70175636f61703a2f2f61732e6578616d706c652e636f6d02656572696b7703
7818636f61703a2f2f6c696768742e6578616d706c652e636f6d041a5612aeb0
051a5610d9f0061a5610d9f007420b71

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 3: Example CWT Claims Set in CBOR Diagnostic Notation

A.2. Example Keys 🔑

this section has the keys used to sign, MAC, and encrypt the messages in this appendix. the line breaks are just for display, so don't read anything into them 🙈

A.2.1. 128-Bit Symmetric Key

a42050231f4c4d4d3051fdc2ec0a3851d5b3830104024c53796d6d6574726963
313238030a

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 5: 128-Bit Symmetric COSE_Key in CBOR Diagnostic Notation

A.2.2. 256-Bit Symmetric Key

a4205820403697de87af64611c1d32a05dab0fe1fcb715a86ab435f1ec99192d
795693880104024c53796d6d6574726963323536030a

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 7: 256-Bit Symmetric COSE_Key in CBOR Diagnostic Notation

A.2.3. Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) P-256 256-Bit COSE Key 💎

a72358206c1382765aec5358f117733d281c1c7bdc39884d04a45a1e6c67c858
bc206c1922582060f7f1a780d8a783bfb7a2dd6b2796e8128dbbcef9d3d168db
9529971a36e7b9215820143329cce7868e416927599cf65a34f3ce2ffda55a7e
ca69ed8919a394d42f0f2001010202524173796d6d6574726963454344534132
35360326

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 9: ECDSA 256-Bit COSE Key in CBOR Diagnostic Notation

A.3. Example Signed CWT ✨

okay so this section shows a signed CWT with a single recipient and a full CWT Claims Set 💖 The signature is generated using the private key from Appendix A.2.3, and it can be validated with the public key from Appendix A.2.3. Line breaks are just for display purposes 🎀

d28443a10126a104524173796d6d657472696345434453413235365850a701756
36f61703a2f2f61732e6578616d706c652e636f6d02656572696b77037818636f
61703a2f2f6c696768742e6578616d706c652e636f6d041a5612aeb0051a5610d
9f0061a5610d9f007420b7158405427c1ff28d23fbad1f29c4c7c6a555e601d6f
a29f9179bc3d7438bacaca5acd08c8d4d4f96131680c429a01f85951ecee743a5
2b9b63632c57209120e1c9e30

Figure 10: Signed CWT as Hex String

18(
  [
    / protected / << {
      / alg / 1: -7 / ECDSA 256 /
    } >>,
    / unprotected / {
      / kid / 4: h'4173796d6d657472696345434453413
                   23536' / 'AsymmetricECDSA256' /
    },
    / payload / << {
      / 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'5427c1ff28d23fbad1f29c4c7c6a555e601d6fa29f
                    9179bc3d7438bacaca5acd08c8d4d4f96131680c42
                    9a01f85951ecee743a52b9b63632c57209120e1c9e
                    30'
  ]
)

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 12: MACed CWT with CWT Tag as Hex String

61(
  17(
    [
      / protected / << {
        / alg / 1: 4 / HMAC-256-64 /
      } >>,
      / unprotected / {
        / kid / 4: h'53796d6d6574726963323536' / 'Symmetric256' /
      },
      / payload / << {
        / 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 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 just for display purposes 🌈

d08343a1010aa2044c53796d6d6574726963313238054d99a0d7846e762c49ff
e8a63e0b5858b918a11fd81e438b7f973d9e2e119bcb22424ba0f38a80f27562
f400ee1d0d6c0fdb559c02421fd384fc2ebe22d7071378b0ea7428fff157444d
45f7e6afcda1aae5f6495830c58627087fc5b4974f319a8707a635dd643b

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 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 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 🫶

d08343a1010aa2044c53796d6d6574726963313238054d4a0694c0e69ee6b595
6655c7b258b7f6b0914f993de822cc47e5e57a188d7960b528a747446fe12f0e
7de05650dec74724366763f167a29c002dfd15b34d8993391cf49bc91127f545
dba8703d66f5b7f1ae91237503d371e6333df9708d78c4fb8a8386c8ff09dc49
af768b23179deab78d96490a66d5724fb33900c60799d9872fac6da3bdb89043
d67c2a05414ce331b5b8f1ed8ff7138f45905db2c4d5bc8045ab372bff142631
610a7e0f677b7e9b0bc73adefdcee16d9d5d284c616abeab5d8c291ce0

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'4a0694c0e69ee6b5956655c7b2'
    },
    / ciphertext / h'f6b0914f993de822cc47e5e57a188d7960b528a7474
                     46fe12f0e7de05650dec74724366763f167a29c002d
                     fd15b34d8993391cf49bc91127f545dba8703d66f5b
                     7f1ae91237503d371e6333df9708d78c4fb8a8386c8
                     ff09dc49af768b23179deab78d96490a66d5724fb33
                     900c60799d9872fac6da3bdb89043d67c2a05414ce3
                     31b5b8f1ed8ff7138f45905db2c4d5bc8045ab372bf
                     f142631610a7e0f677b7e9b0bc73adefdcee16d9d5d
                     284c616abeab5d8c291ce0'
  ]
)

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 has 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 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 19: MACed CWT with a Floating-Point Value in CBOR Diagnostic Notation

Acknowledgements 🙏

this specification is based on JSON Web Token (JWT) [RFC7519], and the authors of JWT also include Nat Sakimura and John Bradley 🌷 It also incorporates suggestions made by many people, including Carsten Bormann, Alissa Cooper, Esko Dijk, Benjamin Kaduk, Warren Kumari, Carlos Martinez, Alexey Melnikov, Kathleen Moriarty, Eric Rescorla, Dan Romascanu, Adam Roach, Kyle Rose, Jim Schaad, Ludwig Seitz, and Goeran Selander 🫶✨

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


Hannes Tschofenig
ARM Ltd.
Hall in Tirol  6060
Austria

Email: Hannes.Tschofenig@arm.com

📦 where this page comes from

ietf: rfc8392 2018-05
💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on 2026-10-18: a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms