WS-Trust 1.3 Errata

Committee Draft

30 April 2008

Specification URIs:

This Version:

Previous Version:


Latest Approved Version:


Technical Committee:



Kelvin Lawrence, IBM

Chris Kaler, Microsoft


Anthony Nadalin, IBM

Marc Goodner, Microsoft

Abbie Barbir, Nortel

Related work:

This specification errata is related to WS-Trust v1.3.


This document lists errata for WS-Trust 1.3 OASIS Standard [WS-Trust] produced by the WS-SX Technical Committee. The standard was approved by the OASIS membership on 1 March 2007.


This document was last revised or approved by the WS-SX TC on the above date. The level of approval is also listed above. Check the “Latest Approved Version” location noted above for possible later revisions of this document.

Technical Committee members should send comments on this specification to the Technical Committee’s email list. Others should send comments to the Technical Committee by using the “Send A Comment” button on the Technical Committee’s web page at .

For information on whether any patents have been disclosed that may be essential to implementing this specification, and any offers of patent licensing terms, please refer to the Intellectual Property Rights section of the Technical Committee web page (

The non-normative errata page for this specification is located at


Copyright © OASIS Open 2008. All Rights Reserved.

All capitalized terms in the following text have the meanings assigned to them in the OASIS Intellectual Property Rights Policy (the "OASIS IPR Policy"). The full Policy may be found at the OASIS website.

This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published, and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this section are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, including by removing the copyright notice or references to OASIS, except as needed for the purpose of developing any document or deliverable produced by an OASIS Technical Committee (in which case the rules applicable to copyrights, as set forth in the OASIS IPR Policy, must be followed) or as required to translate it into languages other than English.

The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by OASIS or its successors or assigns.


OASIS requests that any OASIS Party or any other party that believes it has patent claims that would necessarily be infringed by implementations of this OASIS Committee Specification or OASIS Standard, to notify OASIS TC Administrator and provide an indication of its willingness to grant patent licenses to such patent claims in a manner consistent with the IPR Mode of the OASIS Technical Committee that produced this specification.

OASIS invites any party to contact the OASIS TC Administrator if it is aware of a claim of ownership of any patent claims that would necessarily be infringed by implementations of this specification by a patent holder that is not willing to provide a license to such patent claims in a manner consistent with the IPR Mode of the OASIS Technical Committee that produced this specification. OASIS may include such claims on its website, but disclaims any obligation to do so.

OASIS takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on OASIS' procedures with respect to rights in any document or deliverable produced by an OASIS Technical Committee can be found on the OASIS website. Copies of claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this OASIS Committee Specification or OASIS Standard, can be obtained from the OASIS TC Administrator. OASIS makes no representation that any information or list of intellectual property rights will at any time be complete, or that any claims in such list are, in fact, Essential Claims.

Table of contents

1         Issues Addressed. 4

2         Typographical/Editorial Errors. 5

3         Normative Errors. 12

4         References. 13

Appendix A.    Acknowledgements. 14

1      Issues Addressed

The following issues related to WS-Trust 1.3 as recorded in the [WS-SX Issues] have been addressed in this document.




Review normative RFC 2119 language in WS-Trust


2      Typographical/Editorial Errors

2.1 Normative language capitalization changes

The following changes do not affect the normative meaning of the text, they are only to properly capitalize 2119 terms. The changes listed below document the changes as they appear in the text. There were many instances of the terms OPTIONAL and REQUIRED in the schema exemplar descriptions that appeared un-capitalized that are not captured below but that have also been addressed. All other 2119 terms that remain un-capitalized are used in their English sense.

Line 212

Authentication of requests is based on a combination of OPTIONAL network and transport-provided security and information (claims) proven in the message


Line 231

This model is illustrated in the figure below, showing that any requestor MAY also be a service, and that the Security Token Service is a Web service (that is, it MAY express policy and require security tokens).


Line 242

In the figure above the arrows represent possible communication paths; the requestor MAY obtain a token from the security token service, or it MAY have been obtained indirectly. The requestor then demonstrates authorized use of the token to the Web service. The Web service either trusts the issuing security token service or MAY request a token service to validate the token (or the Web service MAY validate the token itself).


In summary, the Web service has a policy applied to it, receives a message from a requestor that possibly includes security tokens, and MAY have some protection applied to it using [WS-Security] mechanisms.


Line 254

In brokered trust models, the signature MAY NOT verify the identity of the claimant – it MAY verify the identity of the intermediary, who MAY simply assert the identity of the claimant.


Line 259

The trust engine MAY need to externally verify or broker tokens


Line 265

In this specification we define how security tokens are requested and obtained from security token services and how these services MAY broker trust and trust policies so that services can perform step 3.


Line 280

As part of a message flow, a request MAY be made of a security token service to exchange a security token (or some proof) of one form for another


Line 289

the security token service generating the new token MAY NOT need to trust the authority that issued the original token provided by the original requestor since it does trust the security token service that is engaging in the exchange for a new security token


Line 300

An administrator or other trusted authority MAY designate that all tokens of a certain type are


Line 303

or the security token service MAY provide this function as a service to trusting services.


Line 306

These mechanisms are non-normative and are NOT REQUIRED in any way.


Line 313

Trust hierarchies – Building on the trust roots mechanism, a service MAY choose to allow hierarchies of trust so long as the trust chain eventually leads to one of the known trust roots. In some cases the recipient MAY require the sender to provide the full hierarchy. In other cases, the recipient MAY be able to dynamically fetch the tokens for the hierarchy from a token store.


Line 335

or they MAY return a token with their chosen parameters that the requestor MAY then choose to discard because it doesn't meet their needs


Line 339

Other specifications MAY define specific bindings and profiles of this mechanism for additional purposes.


Line 341

in some cases an anonymous request MAY be appropriate


Line 343

If not a fault SHOULD be generated (but is NOT REQUIRED to be returned for denial-of-service reasons).


Line 415 (this one changes a “shouldn’t”)

In general, the returned token SHOULD be considered opaque to the requestor. That is, the requestor SHOULD NOT be required to parse the returned token.


Line 429

and the value of the OPTIONAL @Context attribute


Line 432

In such cases, the RSTR MAY be passed in the body or in a header block.


Line 475

the ellipses below represent the different containers in which this element MAY appear


Line 518

This binding supports the OPTIONAL use of exchanges during the token acquisition process as well as the OPTIONAL use of the key extensions described in a later section.


Line 522

the following OPTIONAL elements


Line 561

This REQUIRED attribute contains a URI that indicates the syntax used to specify the set of requested claims along with how that syntax SHOULD be interpreted.


Line 574

The format is assumed to be understood by the requestor because the value space MAY be


Line 580

The issuer is not obligated to honor this range – they MAY


Line 587

The difference in time SHOULD be minimized.


Line 697

Each request MAY generate more than one RSTR sharing the same Context attribute value


Line 711

Note: that these operations require that the service can either succeed on all the RST requests or MUST NOT perform any partial operation.


Line 722

If any error occurs in the processing of the RSTC or one of its contained RSTs, a SOAP fault MUST be generated for the entire batch request so no RSTC element will be returned.


Line 741

the following OPTIONAL elements


Line 833

The token issuer can OPTIONALLY provide


Line 990

As a result, the proof-of-possession tokens, and possibly lifetime and other key parameters elements, MAY be different


Line 1071

If confidentiality protection of the <wst:IssuedTokens> header is REQUIRED then the entire header MUST be encrypted using the <wsse11:EncryptedHeader> construct.


Line 1131

and the OPTIONAL <wst:Lifetime> element


Line 1167

This OPTIONAL element indicates that returned tokens SHOULD allow requests for postdated tokens.


Line 1225

If a client needs to ensure the validity of a token, it MUST validate the token at the issuer.


Line 1292

this section defines an OPTIONAL binding


Line 1354

The result MAY be a status, a new token, or both.


Line 1370

The request provides a token upon which the request is based and OPTIONAL tokens. As well, the OPTIONAL <wst:TokenType> element


Line 1371

This MAY be any supported token type or it MAY be the following URI indicating that only status is desired:


Line 1378

which is OPTIONAL


Line 1467

However, there are many scenarios where a set of exchanges between the parties is REQUIRED prior to returning (e.g., issuing) a security token.


Line 1487

with the issued security token and OPTIONAL proof-of-possession token


Line 1502

(and MAY contain initial negotiation/challenge information)


Line 1504

Optionally, this MAY return token information


Line 1572

Exchange requests MAY also utilize existing binary formats


Line 1579

ellipses below indicate that this element MAY be placed in different containers


Line 1602

In some cases it MAY be necessary to provide a key exchange token so that the other party (either requestor or issuer) can provide entropy or key material as part of the exchange. Challenges MAY NOT always provide a usable key as the signature may use a signing-only certificate.


Line 1606

The section describes two OPTIONAL elements


Line 1608

ellipses below indicate that this element MAY be placed in different containers


Line 1617

This OPTIONAL element is used to indicate that the receiving party (either the original requestor or issuer) SHOULD provide a KET to the other party on the next leg of the exchange.


Line 1822

This MAY be built into the exchange messages


Line 1832

To this end, the following computed key algorithm is defined to be OPTIONALLY used in these scenarios


Line 1837

However, until the exchange is actually completed it MAY be (and is often) inappropriate to use the computed keys. As well, using a token that hasn't been returned to secure a message may (no change, English) complicate processing since it crosses the boundary of the exchange and the underlying message security. This means that it MAY NOT be appropriate to sign the final leg of the exchange using the key derived from the exchange.


Line 1874

This <wst:CombinedHash> element is OPTIONAL


Line 1878

since all types of requests MAY issue security tokens they could apply to other bindings


Line 1924

The syntax for these OPTIONAL elements is as follows


Line 1950

That is, requestors SHOULD be familiar with the recipient policies


Line 1996

This element either contains a security token or a <wsse:SecurityTokenReference> element that references the security token containing the key that SHOULD be used in the returned token.


Line 2037

EncryptionAlgorithm – used to indicate the symmetric algorithm that the STS SHOULD use to encrypt the T (e.g. AES256)


Line 2043

EncryptionAlgorithm – used to indicate the symmetric algorithm that the STS SHOULD use to encrypt T for RP (e.g. AES256)

KeyWrapAlgorithm – used to indicate the KeyWrap algorithm that the STS SHOULD use to wrap the generated key that is used to encrypt the T for RP


Line 2052

EncryptionAlgorithm – used to indicate the symmetric algorithm that the STS SHOULD use to encrypt T for RP (e.g. AES256)


Line 2059

EncryptionAlgorithm - used to indicate the symmetric algorithm that the STS SHOULD use to encrypt T for RP (e.g. AES256)

KeyWrapAlgorithm – used to indicate the KeyWrap algorithm that the STS SHOULD use to wrap the generated key that is used to encrypt the T for RP


Line 2140

This OPTIONAL element, of type xs:boolean, specifies whether the requested security token SHOULD be marked as "Forwardable”


Line 2145

This OPTIONAL element, of type xs:boolean, specifies whether the requested security token SHOULD be marked as "Delegatable".


Line 2224

Arbitrary types MAY be used to specify participants


Line 2248

OPTINALLY the <wst:TokenType> element can be specified in the request and can indicate


Line 2363

Other specifications and profiles MAY provide additional details on key exchange


Line 2376

In these cases both parties SHOULD contribute entropy to the key exchange by means of the <wst:entropy> element


Line 2403

If the requestor provides key material that the recipient doesn't accept, then the issuer SHOULD reject the request.


Line 2492

A third party MAY also act as a broker to transfer keys


Line 2631

The perfect forward secrecy property MAY be achieved by

3      Normative Errors


4      References

[WS-SX Issues]             WS-SX TC Issues List


[WS-Trust]                     OASIS Standard, “WS-Trust 1.3", March 2007

Appendix A. Acknowledgements

The following individuals have participated in the creation of this specification and are gratefully acknowledged.


TC Members during the development of this specification:

Don Adams, Tibco Software Inc.

Jan Alexander, Microsoft Corporation

Steve Anderson, BMC Software

Donal Arundel, IONA Technologies

Howard Bae, Oracle Corporation

Abbie Barbir, Nortel Networks Limited

Charlton Barreto, Adobe Systems

Mighael Botha, Software AG, Inc.

Toufic Boubez, Layer 7 Technologies Inc.

Norman Brickman, Mitre Corporation

Melissa Brumfield, Booz Allen Hamilton

Lloyd Burch, Novell

Scott Cantor, Internet2

Greg Carpenter, Microsoft Corporation

Steve Carter, Novell

Symon Chang, BEA Systems, Inc.

Ching-Yun (C.Y.) Chao, IBM

Martin Chapman, Oracle Corporation

Kate Cherry, Lockheed Martin

Henry (Hyenvui) Chung, IBM

Luc Clement, Systinet Corp.

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Corporation

Glen Daniels, Sonic Software Corp.

Peter Davis, Neustar, Inc.

Martijn de Boer, SAP AG

Werner Dittmann, Siemens AG

Abdeslem DJAOUI, CCLRC-Rutherford Appleton Laboratory

Fred Dushin, IONA Technologies

Petr Dvorak, Systinet Corp.

Colleen Evans, Microsoft Corporation

Ruchith Fernando, WSO2

Mark Fussell, Microsoft Corporation

Vijay Gajjala, Microsoft Corporation

Marc Goodner, Microsoft Corporation

Hans Granqvist, VeriSign

Martin Gudgin, Microsoft Corporation

Tony Gullotta, SOA Software Inc.

Jiandong Guo, Sun Microsystems

Phillip Hallam-Baker, VeriSign

Patrick Harding, Ping Identity Corporation

Heather Hinton, IBM

Frederick Hirsch, Nokia Corporation

Jeff Hodges, Neustar, Inc.

Will Hopkins, BEA Systems, Inc.

Alex Hristov, Otecia Incorporated

John Hughes, PA Consulting

Diane Jordan, IBM

Venugopal K, Sun Microsystems

Chris Kaler, Microsoft Corporation

Dana Kaufman, Forum Systems, Inc.

Paul Knight, Nortel Networks Limited

Ramanathan Krishnamurthy, IONA Technologies

Christopher Kurt, Microsoft Corporation

Kelvin Lawrence, IBM

Hubert Le Van Gong, Sun Microsystems

Jong Lee, BEA Systems, Inc.

Rich Levinson, Oracle Corporation

Tommy Lindberg, Dajeil Ltd.

Mark Little, JBoss Inc.

Hal Lockhart, BEA Systems, Inc.

Mike Lyons, Layer 7 Technologies Inc.

Eve Maler, Sun Microsystems

Ashok Malhotra, Oracle Corporation

Anand Mani, CrimsonLogic Pte Ltd

Jonathan Marsh, Microsoft Corporation

Robin Martherus, Oracle Corporation

Miko Matsumura, Infravio, Inc.

Gary McAfee, IBM

Michael McIntosh, IBM

John Merrells, Sxip Networks SRL

Jeff Mischkinsky, Oracle Corporation

Prateek Mishra, Oracle Corporation

Bob Morgan, Internet2

Vamsi Motukuru, Oracle Corporation

Raajmohan Na, EDS

Anthony Nadalin, IBM

Andrew Nash, Reactivity, Inc.

Eric Newcomer, IONA Technologies

Duane Nickull, Adobe Systems

Toshihiro Nishimura, Fujitsu Limited

Rob Philpott, RSA Security

Denis Pilipchuk, BEA Systems, Inc.

Darren Platt, Ping Identity Corporation

Martin Raepple, SAP AG

Nick Ragouzis, Enosis Group LLC

Prakash Reddy, CA

Alain Regnier, Ricoh Company, Ltd.

Irving Reid, Hewlett-Packard

Bruce Rich, IBM

Tom Rutt, Fujitsu Limited

Maneesh Sahu, Actional Corporation

Frank Siebenlist, Argonne  National Laboratory

Joe Smith, Apani Networks

Davanum Srinivas, WSO2

Yakov Sverdlov, CA

Gene Thurston, AmberPoint

Victor Valle, IBM

Asir Vedamuthu, Microsoft Corporation

Greg Whitehead, Hewlett-Packard

Ron Williams, IBM

Corinna Witt, BEA Systems, Inc.

Kyle Young, Microsoft Corporation