GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc8176

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Jones Request for Comments: 8176 Microsoft Category: Standards Track P. Hunt ISSN: 2070-1721 Oracle

                                                            A. Nadalin
                                                             Microsoft
                                                             June 2017
               Authentication Method Reference Values

Abstract

 The "amr" (Authentication Methods References) claim is defined and
 registered in the IANA "JSON Web Token Claims" registry, but no
 standard Authentication Method Reference values are currently
 defined.  This specification establishes a registry for
 Authentication Method Reference values and defines an initial set of
 Authentication Method Reference values.

Status of This Memo

 This is an Internet Standards Track document.
 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
 (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
 received public review and has been approved for publication by the
 Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
 Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
 Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
 and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
 http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8176.

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
 (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.

Jones, et al. Standards Track [Page 1] RFC 8176 Authentication Method Reference Values June 2017

Table of Contents

 1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   1.1.  Requirements Notation and Conventions . . . . . . . . . .   4
   1.2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
 2.  Authentication Method Reference Values  . . . . . . . . . . .   5
 3.  Relationship to "acr" (Authentication Context Class
     Reference)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
 4.  Privacy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
 5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
 6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.1.  Authentication Method Reference Values Registry . . . . .   8
     6.1.1.  Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.1.2.  Initial Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
 7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
 Appendix A.  Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
 Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
 Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15

Jones, et al. Standards Track [Page 2] RFC 8176 Authentication Method Reference Values June 2017

1. Introduction

 The "amr" (Authentication Methods References) claim is defined and
 registered in the IANA "JSON Web Token Claims" registry
 [IANA.JWT.Claims], but no standard Authentication Method Reference
 values are currently defined.  This specification establishes a
 registry for Authentication Method Reference values and defines an
 initial set of Authentication Method Reference values.
 For context, the "amr" (Authentication Methods References) claim is
 defined by Section 2 of the OpenID Connect Core 1.0 specification
 [OpenID.Core] as follows:
 amr
    OPTIONAL.  Authentication Methods References.  JSON array of
    strings that are identifiers for authentication methods used in
    the authentication.  For instance, values might indicate that both
    password and OTP authentication methods were used.  The definition
    of particular values to be used in the "amr" Claim is beyond the
    scope of this specification.  Parties using this claim will need
    to agree upon the meanings of the values used, which may be
    context-specific.  The "amr" value is an array of case sensitive
    strings.
 Typically, each "amr" value provides an identifier for a family of
 closely related authentication methods.  For example, the "otp"
 identifier intentionally covers OTPs (One-Time Passwords) based on
 both time and HMAC (Hashed Message Authentication Code).  Many
 relying parties will be content to know that an OTP has been used in
 addition to a password; the distinction between which kind of OTP was
 used is not useful to them.  Thus, there's a single identifier that
 can be satisfied in two or more nearly equivalent ways.
 Similarly, there's a whole range of nuances between different
 fingerprint-matching algorithms.  They differ in false-positive and
 false-negative rates over different population samples and also
 differ based on the kind and model of fingerprint sensor used.  Like
 the OTP case, many relying parties will be content to know that a
 fingerprint match was made, without delving into and differentiating
 based on every aspect of the implementation of fingerprint capture
 and match.  The "fpt" identifier accomplishes this.
 Ultimately, the relying party is depending upon the identity provider
 to do reasonable things.  If it does not trust the identity provider
 to do so, it has no business using it.  The "amr" value lets the
 identity provider signal to the relying party additional information
 about what it did, for the cases in which that information is useful
 to the relying party.

Jones, et al. Standards Track [Page 3] RFC 8176 Authentication Method Reference Values June 2017

 The "amr" values defined by this specification are not intended to be
 an exhaustive set covering all use cases.  Additional values can and
 will be added to the registry by other specifications.  Rather, the
 values defined herein are an intentionally small set and are already
 actually being used in practice.
 The values defined by this specification only make distinctions that
 are known to be useful to relying parties.  Slicing things more
 finely than would be used in practice would actually hurt
 interoperability, rather than helping it, because it would force
 relying parties to recognize that several or many different values
 actually mean the same thing to them.
 For context, while the claim values registered pertain to
 authentication, note that OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749] is designed for
 resource authorization and cannot be used for authentication without
 employing appropriate extensions, such as those defined by OpenID
 Connect Core 1.0 [OpenID.Core].  The existence of the "amr" claim and
 values for it should not be taken as encouragement to try to use
 OAuth 2.0 for authentication without employing extensions that enable
 secure authentication to be performed.
 When used with OpenID Connect, if the identity provider supplies an
 "amr" claim in the ID Token resulting from a successful
 authentication, the relying party can inspect the values returned and
 thereby learn details about how the authentication was performed.
 For instance, the relying party might learn that only a password was
 used or it might learn that iris recognition was used in combination
 with a hardware-secured key.  Whether "amr" values are provided and
 which values are understood by what parties are both beyond the scope
 of this specification.  The OpenID Connect MODRNA Authentication
 Profile 1.0 [OpenID.MODRNA] is one example of an application context
 that uses "amr" values defined by this specification.

1.1. Requirements Notation and Conventions

 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.

1.2. Terminology

 This specification uses the terms defined by JSON Web Token (JWT)
 [RFC7519] and OpenID Connect Core 1.0 [OpenID.Core].

Jones, et al. Standards Track [Page 4] RFC 8176 Authentication Method Reference Values June 2017

2. Authentication Method Reference Values

 The following is a list of Authentication Method Reference values
 defined by this specification:
 face
    Biometric authentication [RFC4949] using facial recognition.
 fpt
    Biometric authentication [RFC4949] using a fingerprint.
 geo
    Use of geolocation information for authentication, such as that
    provided by [W3C.REC-geolocation-API-20161108].
 hwk
    Proof-of-Possession (PoP) of a hardware-secured key.  See
    Appendix C of [RFC4211] for a discussion on PoP.
 iris
    Biometric authentication [RFC4949] using an iris scan.
 kba
    Knowledge-based authentication [NIST.800-63-2] [ISO29115].
 mca
    Multiple-channel authentication [MCA].  The authentication
    involves communication over more than one distinct communication
    channel.  For instance, a multiple-channel authentication might
    involve both entering information into a workstation's browser and
    providing information on a telephone call to a pre-registered
    number.
 mfa
    Multiple-factor authentication [NIST.800-63-2] [ISO29115].  When
    this is present, specific authentication methods used may also be
    included.
 otp
    One-time password [RFC4949].  One-time password specifications
    that this authentication method applies to include [RFC4226] and
    [RFC6238].

Jones, et al. Standards Track [Page 5] RFC 8176 Authentication Method Reference Values June 2017

 pin
    Personal Identification Number (PIN) [RFC4949] or pattern (not
    restricted to containing only numbers) that a user enters to
    unlock a key on the device.  This mechanism should have a way to
    deter an attacker from obtaining the PIN by trying repeated
    guesses.
 pwd
    Password-based authentication [RFC4949].
 rba
    Risk-based authentication [JECM].
 retina
    Biometric authentication [RFC4949] using a retina scan.
 sc
    Smart card [RFC4949].
 sms
    Confirmation using SMS [SMS] text message to the user at a
    registered number.
 swk
    Proof-of-Possession (PoP) of a software-secured key.  See
    Appendix C of [RFC4211] for a discussion on PoP.
 tel
    Confirmation by telephone call to the user at a registered number.
    This authentication technique is sometimes also referred to as
    "call back" [RFC4949].
 user
    User presence test.  Evidence that the end user is present and
    interacting with the device.  This is sometimes also referred to
    as "test of user presence" [W3C.WD-webauthn-20170216].
 vbm
    Biometric authentication [RFC4949] using a voiceprint.
 wia
    Windows integrated authentication [MSDN].

Jones, et al. Standards Track [Page 6] RFC 8176 Authentication Method Reference Values June 2017

3. Relationship to "acr" (Authentication Context Class Reference)

 The "acr" (Authentication Context Class Reference) claim and
 "acr_values" request parameter are related to the "amr"
 (Authentication Methods References) claim, but with important
 differences.  An Authentication Context Class specifies a set of
 business rules that authentications are being requested to satisfy.
 These rules can often be satisfied by using a number of different
 specific authentication methods, either singly or in combination.
 Interactions using "acr_values" request that the specified
 Authentication Context Classes be used and that the result should
 contain an "acr" claim saying which Authentication Context Class was
 satisfied.  The "acr" claim in the reply states that the business
 rules for the class were satisfied -- not how they were satisfied.
 In contrast, interactions using the "amr" claim make statements about
 the particular authentication methods that were used.  This tends to
 be more brittle than using "acr", since the authentication methods
 that may be appropriate for a given authentication will vary over
 time, both because of the evolution of attacks on existing methods
 and the deployment of new authentication methods.

4. Privacy Considerations

 The list of "amr" claim values returned in an ID Token reveals
 information about the way that the end user authenticated to the
 identity provider.  In some cases, this information may have privacy
 implications.
 While this specification defines identifiers for particular kinds of
 credentials, it does not define how these credentials are stored or
 protected.  For instance, ensuring the security and privacy of
 biometric credentials that are referenced by some of the defined
 Authentication Method Reference values is beyond the scope of this
 specification.

5. Security Considerations

 The security considerations in OpenID Connect Core 1.0 [OpenID.Core],
 OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749], and the entire OAuth 2.0 Threat Model [RFC6819]
 apply to applications using this specification.
 As described in Section 3, taking a dependence upon particular
 authentication methods may result in brittle systems since the
 authentication methods that may be appropriate for a given
 authentication will vary over time.

Jones, et al. Standards Track [Page 7] RFC 8176 Authentication Method Reference Values June 2017

6. IANA Considerations

6.1. Authentication Method Reference Values Registry

 This specification establishes the IANA "Authentication Method
 Reference Values" registry for "amr" claim array element values.  The
 registry records the Authentication Method Reference value and a
 reference to the specification that defines it.  This specification
 registers the Authentication Method Reference values defined in
 Section 2.
 Values are registered on an Expert Review [RFC5226] basis after a
 three-week review period on the <jwt-reg-review@ietf.org> mailing
 list, on the advice of one or more Designated Experts.  To increase
 potential interoperability, the Designated Experts are requested to
 encourage registrants to provide the location of a publicly
 accessible specification defining the values being registered, so
 that their intended usage can be more easily understood.
 Registration requests sent to the mailing list for review should use
 an appropriate subject (e.g., "Request to register Authentication
 Method Reference value: otp").
 Within the review period, the Designated Experts will either approve
 or deny the registration request, communicating this decision to the
 review list and IANA.  Denials should include an explanation and, if
 applicable, suggestions as to how to make the request successful.
 Registration requests that are undetermined for a period longer than
 21 days can be brought to the IESG's attention (using the
 <iesg@ietf.org> mailing list) for resolution.
 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 the same Designated Experts evaluate these
 registration requests as those who evaluate registration requests for
 the IANA "JSON Web Token Claims" registry [IANA.JWT.Claims].
 Criteria that should be applied by the Designated Experts include
 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; whether the value
 is actually being used; and whether the registration description is
 clear.

Jones, et al. Standards Track [Page 8] RFC 8176 Authentication Method Reference Values June 2017

6.1.1. Registration Template

 Authentication Method Reference Name:
    The name requested (e.g., "otp") for the authentication method or
    family of closely related authentication methods.  Because a core
    goal of this specification is for the resulting representations to
    be compact, it is RECOMMENDED that the name be short -- that is,
    not to exceed 8 characters without a compelling reason to do so.
    To facilitate interoperability, the name must use only printable
    ASCII characters excluding double quote ('"') and backslash ('\')
    (the Unicode characters with code points U+0021, U+0023 through
    U+005B, and U+005D through U+007E).  This name is case sensitive.
    Names may not match other registered names in a case-insensitive
    manner unless the Designated Experts state that there is a
    compelling reason to allow an exception.
 Authentication Method Reference Description:
    Brief description of the Authentication Method Reference (e.g.,
    "One-time password").
 Change Controller:
    For Standards Track RFCs, state "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.

6.1.2. Initial Registry Contents

 o  Authentication Method Reference Name: "face"
 o  Authentication Method Reference Description: Facial recognition
 o  Change Controller: IESG
 o  Specification Document(s): Section 2 of [RFC8176]
 o  Authentication Method Reference Name: "fpt"
 o  Authentication Method Reference Description: Fingerprint biometric
 o  Change Controller: IESG
 o  Specification Document(s): Section 2 of [RFC8176]
 o  Authentication Method Reference Name: "geo"
 o  Authentication Method Reference Description: Geolocation
 o  Change Controller: IESG
 o  Specification Document(s): Section 2 of [RFC8176]

Jones, et al. Standards Track [Page 9] RFC 8176 Authentication Method Reference Values June 2017

 o  Authentication Method Reference Name: "hwk"
 o  Authentication Method Reference Description: Proof-of-possession
    of a hardware-secured key
 o  Change Controller: IESG
 o  Specification Document(s): Section 2 of [RFC8176]
 o  Authentication Method Reference Name: "iris"
 o  Authentication Method Reference Description: Iris scan biometric
 o  Change Controller: IESG
 o  Specification Document(s): Section 2 of [RFC8176]
 o  Authentication Method Reference Name: "kba"
 o  Authentication Method Reference Description: Knowledge-based
    authentication
 o  Change Controller: IESG
 o  Specification Document(s): Section 2 of [RFC8176]
 o  Authentication Method Reference Name: "mca"
 o  Authentication Method Reference Description: Multiple-channel
    authentication
 o  Change Controller: IESG
 o  Specification Document(s): Section 2 of [RFC8176]
 o  Authentication Method Reference Name: "mfa"
 o  Authentication Method Reference Description: Multiple-factor
    authentication
 o  Change Controller: IESG
 o  Specification Document(s): Section 2 of [RFC8176]
 o  Authentication Method Reference Name: "otp"
 o  Authentication Method Reference Description: One-time password
 o  Change Controller: IESG
 o  Specification Document(s): Section 2 of [RFC8176]
 o  Authentication Method Reference Name: "pin"
 o  Authentication Method Reference Description: Personal
    Identification Number or pattern
 o  Change Controller: IESG
 o  Specification Document(s): Section 2 of [RFC8176]
 o  Authentication Method Reference Name: "pwd"
 o  Authentication Method Reference Description: Password-based
    authentication
 o  Change Controller: IESG
 o  Specification Document(s): Section 2 of [RFC8176]

Jones, et al. Standards Track [Page 10] RFC 8176 Authentication Method Reference Values June 2017

 o  Authentication Method Reference Name: "rba"
 o  Authentication Method Reference Description: Risk-based
    authentication
 o  Change Controller: IESG
 o  Specification Document(s): Section 2 of [RFC8176]
 o  Authentication Method Reference Name: "retina"
 o  Authentication Method Reference Description: Retina scan biometric
 o  Change Controller: IESG
 o  Specification Document(s): Section 2 of [RFC8176]
 o  Authentication Method Reference Name: "sc"
 o  Authentication Method Reference Description: Smart card
 o  Change Controller: IESG
 o  Specification Document(s): Section 2 of [RFC8176]
 o  Authentication Method Reference Name: "sms"
 o  Authentication Method Reference Description: Confirmation using
    SMS
 o  Change Controller: IESG
 o  Specification Document(s): Section 2 of [RFC8176]
 o  Authentication Method Reference Name: "swk"
 o  Authentication Method Reference Description: Proof-of-possession
    of a software-secured key
 o  Change Controller: IESG
 o  Specification Document(s): Section 2 of [RFC8176]
 o  Authentication Method Reference Name: "tel"
 o  Authentication Method Reference Description: Confirmation by
    telephone call
 o  Change Controller: IESG
 o  Specification Document(s): Section 2 of [RFC8176]
 o  Authentication Method Reference Name: "user"
 o  Authentication Method Reference Description: User presence test
 o  Change Controller: IESG
 o  Specification Document(s): Section 2 of [RFC8176]
 o  Authentication Method Reference Name: "vbm"
 o  Authentication Method Reference Description: Voice biometric
 o  Change Controller: IESG
 o  Specification Document(s): Section 2 of [RFC8176]

Jones, et al. Standards Track [Page 11] RFC 8176 Authentication Method Reference Values June 2017

 o  Authentication Method Reference Name: "wia"
 o  Authentication Method Reference Description: Windows integrated
    authentication
 o  Change Controller: IESG
 o  Specification Document(s): Section 2 of [RFC8176]

7. References

7.1. Normative References

 [IANA.JWT.Claims]
            IANA, "JSON Web Token Claims",
            <http://www.iana.org/assignments/jwt>.
 [OpenID.Core]
            Sakimura, N., Bradley, J., Jones, M., de Medeiros, B., and
            C. Mortimore, "OpenID Connect Core 1.0", November 2014,
            <http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html>.
 [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>.
 [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>.
 [RFC6749]  Hardt, D., Ed., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework",
            RFC 6749, DOI 10.17487/RFC6749, October 2012,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6749>.
 [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>.
 [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
            2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
            May 2017, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

Jones, et al. Standards Track [Page 12] RFC 8176 Authentication Method Reference Values June 2017

7.2. Informative References

 [ISO29115] International Organization for Standardization,
            "ISO/IEC 29115:2013 Information technology - Security
            techniques - Entity authentication assurance framework",
            ISO/IEC 29115:2013, April 2013,
            <https://www.iso.org/standard/45138.html>.
 [JECM]     Williamson, G., "Enhanced Authentication In Online
            Banking", Journal of Economic Crime Management 4.2: 18-19,
            2006,
            <http://utica.edu/academic/institutes/ecii/publications/
            articles/51D6D996-90F2-F468-AC09C4E8071575AE.pdf>.
 [MCA]      ldapwiki.com, "Multiple-channel Authentication", August
            2016, <https://www.ldapwiki.com/wiki/
            Multiple-channel%20Authentication>.
 [MSDN]     Microsoft, "Integrated Windows Authentication with
            Negotiate", September 2011,
            <http://blogs.msdn.com/b/benjaminperkins/
            archive/2011/09/14/iis-integrated-windows-authentication-
            with-negotiate.aspx>.
 [NIST.800-63-2]
            National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
            "Electronic Authentication Guideline", NIST Special
            Publication 800-63-2, DOI 10.6028/NIST.SP.800-63-2, August
            2013, <http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/
            nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-63-2.pdf>.
 [OpenID.MODRNA]
            Connotte, J. and J. Bradley, "OpenID Connect MODRNA
            Authentication Profile 1.0", March 2017,
            <http://openid.net/specs/
            openid-connect-modrna-authentication-1_0.html>.
 [RFC4211]  Schaad, J., "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure
            Certificate Request Message Format (CRMF)", RFC 4211,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC4211, September 2005,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4211>.
 [RFC4226]  M'Raihi, D., Bellare, M., Hoornaert, F., Naccache, D., and
            O. Ranen, "HOTP: An HMAC-Based One-Time Password
            Algorithm", RFC 4226, DOI 10.17487/RFC4226, December 2005,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4226>.

Jones, et al. Standards Track [Page 13] RFC 8176 Authentication Method Reference Values June 2017

 [RFC4949]  Shirey, R., "Internet Security Glossary, Version 2",
            FYI 36, RFC 4949, DOI 10.17487/RFC4949, August 2007,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4949>.
 [RFC6238]  M'Raihi, D., Machani, S., Pei, M., and J. Rydell, "TOTP:
            Time-Based One-Time Password Algorithm", RFC 6238,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC6238, May 2011,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6238>.
 [RFC6819]  Lodderstedt, T., Ed., McGloin, M., and P. Hunt, "OAuth 2.0
            Threat Model and Security Considerations", RFC 6819,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC6819, January 2013,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6819>.
 [SMS]      3GPP, "Technical realization of the Short Message Service
            (SMS)", 3GPP Technical Specification (TS) 03.40
            Version 7.5.0 (2001-12), January 2002,
            <https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/Specifications/
            SpecificationDetails.aspx?specificationId=141>.
 [W3C.REC-geolocation-API-20161108]
            Popescu, A., "Geolocation API Specification 2nd Edition",
            World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation REC-geolocation-
            API-20161108, November 2016, <https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/
            REC-geolocation-API-20161108>.
 [W3C.WD-webauthn-20170216]
            Bharadwaj, V., Le Van Gong, H., Balfanz, D., Czeskis, A.,
            Birgisson, A., Hodges, J., Jones, M., Lindemann, R., and
            J. Jones, "Web Authentication: An API for accessing Scoped
            Credentials", World Wide Web Consortium Working Draft
            WD-webauthn-20170216, February 2017,
            <http://www.w3.org/TR/2017/WD-webauthn-20170216/>.

Jones, et al. Standards Track [Page 14] RFC 8176 Authentication Method Reference Values June 2017

Appendix A. Examples

 In some cases, the "amr" claim value returned may contain a single
 Authentication Method Reference value.  For example, the following
 "amr" claim value indicates that the authentication performed used an
 iris scan biometric:
   "amr": ["iris"]
 In other cases, the "amr" claim value returned may contain multiple
 Authentication Method Reference values.  For example, the following
 "amr" claim value indicates that the authentication performed used a
 password and knowledge-based authentication:
   "amr": ["pwd", "kba"]

Acknowledgements

 Caleb Baker participated in specifying the original set of "amr"
 values.  Jari Arkko, John Bradley, Ben Campbell, Brian Campbell,
 William Denniss, Linda Dunbar, Stephen Farrell, Paul Kyzivat, Elaine
 Newton, James Manger, Catherine Meadows, Alexey Melnikov, Kathleen
 Moriarty, Nat Sakimura, and Mike Schwartz provided reviews of the
 specification.

Authors' Addresses

 Michael B. Jones
 Microsoft
 Email: mbj@microsoft.com
 URI:   http://self-issued.info/
 Phil Hunt
 Oracle
 Email: phil.hunt@yahoo.com
 Anthony Nadalin
 Microsoft
 Email: tonynad@microsoft.com

Jones, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc8176.txt · Last modified: 2017/06/16 23:55 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki