[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-lodderstedt-oauth-rar) 00 01 02 03 04

Web Authorization Protocol                                T. Lodderstedt
Internet-Draft                                                   yes.com
Intended status: Standards Track                               J. Richer
Expires: 11 August 2021                              Bespoke Engineering
                                                             B. Campbell
                                                           Ping Identity
                                                         7 February 2021


                 OAuth 2.0 Rich Authorization Requests
                        draft-ietf-oauth-rar-04

Abstract

   This document specifies a new parameter "authorization_details" that
   is used to carry fine grained authorization data in the OAuth
   authorization request.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 11 August 2021.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2021 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 (https://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.



Lodderstedt, et al.      Expires 11 August 2021                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  February 2021


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Request parameter "authorization_details" . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Authorization data elements types . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.2.  Authorization Data Types  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   3.  Authorization Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     3.1.  Relationship to "scope" parameter . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     3.2.  Relationship to "resource" parameter  . . . . . . . . . .  13
   4.  Authorization Response  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   5.  Authorization Error Response  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   6.  Token Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   7.  Token Response  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     7.1.  Enriched authorization details in Token Response  . . . .  15
   8.  Resource Servers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     8.1.  JWT-based Access Tokens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     8.2.  Token Introspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   9.  Metadata  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   10. Scope value "openid" and "claims" parameter . . . . . . . . .  22
   11. Implementation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     11.1.  Using authorization details in a certain deployment  . .  22
     11.2.  Minimal product support  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     11.3.  Large requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   13. Privacy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   14. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   15. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   16. Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   17. Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   Appendix A.  Additional Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
     A.1.  OpenID Connect  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
     A.2.  Remote Electronic Signing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
     A.3.  Access to Tax Data  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
     A.4.  eHealth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
   Appendix B.  Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35














Lodderstedt, et al.      Expires 11 August 2021                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  February 2021


1.  Introduction

   The OAuth 2.0 authorization framework [RFC6749] defines the parameter
   "scope" that allows OAuth clients to specify the requested scope,
   i.e., the permission, of an access token.  This mechanism is
   sufficient to implement static scenarios and coarse-grained
   authorization requests, such as "give me read access to the resource
   owner's profile" but it is not sufficient to specify fine-grained
   authorization requirements, such as "please let me make a payment
   with the amount of 45 Euros" or "please give me read access to folder
   A and write access to file X".

   This draft introduces a new parameter "authorization_details" that
   allows clients to specify their fine-grained authorization
   requirements using the expressiveness of JSON data structures.

   For example, a request for payment authorization can be represented
   using a JSON object like this:

   {
      "type": "payment_initiation",
      "locations": [
         "https://example.com/payments"
      ],
      "instructedAmount": {
         "currency": "EUR",
         "amount": "123.50"
      },
      "creditorName": "Merchant123",
      "creditorAccount": {
         "iban": "DE02100100109307118603"
      },
      "remittanceInformationUnstructured": "Ref Number Merchant"
   }

   This object contains detailed information about the intended payment,
   such as amount, currency, and creditor, that are required to inform
   the user and obtain her consent.  The AS and the respective RS
   (providing the payment initiation API) will together enforce this
   consent.

   For a comprehensive discussion of the challenges arising from new use
   cases in the open banking and electronic signing spaces see
   [transaction-authorization].

   In addition to facilitating custom authorization requests, this draft
   also introduces a set of common data type fields for use across
   different APIs.



Lodderstedt, et al.      Expires 11 August 2021                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  February 2021


   Most notably, the field "locations" allows a client to specify where
   it intends to use a certain authorization, i.e., it is now possible
   to unambiguously assign permissions to resource servers.  In
   situations with multiple resource servers, this prevents unintended
   client authorizations (e.g. a "read" scope value potentially
   applicable for an email as well as a cloud service).  In combination
   with the "resource" token request parameter as specified in [RFC8707]
   it enables the AS to mint RS-specific structured access tokens that
   only contain the permissions applicable to the respective RS.

1.1.  Conventions and 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.

   This specification uses the terms "access token", "refresh token",
   "authorization server", "resource server", "authorization endpoint",
   "authorization request", "authorization response", "token endpoint",
   "grant type", "access token request", "access token response", and
   "client" defined by The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework [RFC6749].

2.  Request parameter "authorization_details"

   The request parameter "authorization_details" contains, in JSON
   notation, an array of objects.  Each JSON object contains the data to
   specify the authorization requirements for a certain type of
   resource.  The type of resource or access requirement is determined
   by the "type" field.

   This example shows the specification of authorization details using
   the payment authorization object shown above:

















Lodderstedt, et al.      Expires 11 August 2021                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  February 2021


   [
      {
         "type": "payment_initiation",
         "actions": [
            "initiate",
            "status",
            "cancel"
         ],
         "locations": [
            "https://example.com/payments"
         ],
         "instructedAmount": {
            "currency": "EUR",
            "amount": "123.50"
         },
         "creditorName": "Merchant123",
         "creditorAccount": {
            "iban": "DE02100100109307118603"
         },
         "remittanceInformationUnstructured": "Ref Number Merchant"
      }
   ]

   This example shows a combined request asking for access to account
   information and permission to initiate a payment:


























Lodderstedt, et al.      Expires 11 August 2021                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  February 2021


   [
      {
         "type": "account_information",
         "actions": [
            "list_accounts",
            "read_balances",
            "read_transactions"
         ],
         "locations": [
            "https://example.com/accounts"
         ]
      },
      {
         "type": "payment_initiation",
         "actions": [
            "initiate",
            "status",
            "cancel"
         ],
         "locations": [
            "https://example.com/payments"
         ],
         "instructedAmount": {
            "currency": "EUR",
            "amount": "123.50"
         },
         "creditorName": "Merchant123",
         "creditorAccount": {
            "iban": "DE02100100109307118603"
         },
         "remittanceInformationUnstructured": "Ref Number Merchant"
      }
   ]

   The JSON objects with "type" fields of "account_information" and
   "payment_initiation" represent the different authorization data to be
   used by the AS to ask for consent and MUST subsequently also be made
   available to the respective resource servers.  The array MAY contain
   several elements of the same "type".

2.1.  Authorization data elements types

   The allowable contents of the authorization details object are
   determined by the "type" parameter.

   "type":  The type of authorization data as a string.  This field MAY
      define which other elements are allowed in the request.  This
      element is REQUIRED.



Lodderstedt, et al.      Expires 11 August 2021                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  February 2021


   This field MUST be compared using an exact byte match of the string
   value against known types by the AS.  The AS MUST ensure that there
   is no collision between different authorization data types that it
   supports.  The AS MUST NOT do any collation or normalization of data
   types during comparison.

   This draft defines a set of common data elements that are designed to
   be usable across different types of APIs.  These data elements MAY be
   combined in different ways depending on the needs of the API.  All
   data elements are OPTIONAL.

   "locations":  An array of strings representing the location of the
      resource or resource server.  This is typically composed of URIs.

   "actions":  An array of strings representing the kinds of actions to
      be taken at the resource.  The values of the strings are
      determined by the API being protected.

   "datatypes":  An array of strings representing the kinds of data
      being requested from the resource.

   "identifier":  A string identifier indicating a specific resource
      available at the API.

   When different element types are used in combination, the permissions
   the client requests is the cartesian product of the values.  That is
   to say, the object represents a request for all "action" values
   listed within the object to be used at all "locations" values listed
   within the object for all "datatype" values listed within the object.
   In the following example, the client is requesting "read" and "write"
   access to both the "contacts" and "photos" belonging to customers in
   a "customer_information" API.  If this request is granted, the client
   would assume it would be able to use any combination of rights
   defined by the API, such as reading the photos and writing the
   contacts.
















Lodderstedt, et al.      Expires 11 August 2021                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  February 2021


   [
      {
         "type": "customer_information",
         "locations": [
            "https://example.com/customers",
         ]
         "actions": [
            "read",
            "write"
         ],
         "datatypes": [
            "contacts",
            "photos"
         ]
      }
   ]

   If the client wishes to have finer control over its access, it can
   send multiple objects.  In this example, the client is asking for
   "read" access to the "contacts" and "write" access to the "photos" in
   the same API endpoint.  If this request is granted, the client would
   not be able to write to the contacts.





























Lodderstedt, et al.      Expires 11 August 2021                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  February 2021


   [
      {
         "type": "customer_information",
         "locations": [
            "https://example.com/customers"
         ],
         "actions": [
            "read"
         ],
         "datatypes": [
            "contacts"
         ]
      },
      {
         "type": "customer_information",
         "locations": [
            "https://example.com/customers"
         ],
         "actions": [
            "write"
         ],
         "datatypes": [
            "photos"
         ]
      }
   ]

   An API MAY define its own extensions, subject to the "type" of the
   respective authorization object.  It is anticipated that API
   designers will use a combination of common fields defined in this
   specification as well as fields specific to the API itself.  The
   following non-normative example shows the use of both common and API-
   specific fields as part of two different fictitious API "type"
   values.  The first access request includes the "actions",
   "locations", and "datatypes" fields specified here as well as the
   API-specific "geolocation" field.  The second access request includes
   the "actions" and "identifier" fields specified here as well as the
   API-specific "currency" field.













Lodderstedt, et al.      Expires 11 August 2021                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  February 2021


       "resources": [
           {
               "type": "photo-api",
               "actions": [
                   "read",
                   "write"
               ],
               "locations": [
                   "https://server.example.net/",
                   "https://resource.local/other"
               ],
               "datatypes": [
                   "metadata",
                   "images"
               ],
               "geolocation": [
                   { lat: -32.364, lng: 153.207 },
                   { lat: -35.364, lng: 158.207 }
               ]
           },
           {
               "type": "financial-transaction",
               "actions": [
                   "withdraw"
               ],
               "identifier": "account-14-32-32-3",
               "currency": "USD"
           }
       ]

   If this request is approved, the resulting access token's access
   rights will be the union of the requested types of access for each of
   the two APIs, just as above.

2.2.  Authorization Data Types

   Interpretation of the value of the "type" parameter, and the object
   elements that the "type" parameter allows, is under the control of
   the AS.  However, the value of the "type" parameter is also generally
   documented and intended to be used by developers, it is RECOMMENDED
   that API designers choose "type" values that are easily copied
   without ambiguity.  For example, some glyphs have multiple unicode
   code points for the same visual character, and a developer could
   potentially type a different character depending than what the AS has
   defined.  Possible means of reducing potential confusion are limiting
   the value to ASCII characters, providing a machine-readable listing
   of data type values, or instructing developers to copy and paste
   directly from documentation.



Lodderstedt, et al.      Expires 11 August 2021                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  February 2021


   If an application or API is expected to be deployed across different
   servers, such as the case in an open standard, the API designer is
   RECOMMENDED to use a collision-resistant namespace under their
   control, such as a URI that the API designer controls.

   The following example shows how an implementation could utilize the
   namespace "https://scheme.example.org/" to ensure collision resistant
   element names.

   {
      "type": "https://scheme.example.org/files",
      "locations": [
         "https://example.com/files"
      ],
      "permissions": [
         {
            "path": "/myfiles/A",
            "access": [
               "read"
            ]
         },
         {
            "path": "/myfiles/A/X",
            "access": [
               "read",
               "write"
            ]
         }
      ]
   }

3.  Authorization Request

   The "authorization_details" request parameter can be used to specify
   authorization requirements in all places where the "scope" parameter
   is used for the same purpose, examples include:

   *  Authorization requests as specified in [RFC6749],

   *  Access token requests as specified in [RFC6749], if also used as
      authorization requests, e.g. in the case of assertion grant types
      [RFC7521],

   *  Request objects as specified in [I-D.ietf-oauth-jwsreq],

   *  Device Authorization Request as specified in [RFC8628],

   *  Backchannel Authentication Requests as defined in [OpenID.CIBA].



Lodderstedt, et al.      Expires 11 August 2021                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  February 2021


   Parameter encoding is determined by the respective context.  In the
   context of an authorization request according to [RFC6749], the
   parameter is encoded using the "application/x-www-form-urlencoded"
   format of the serialized JSON as shown in the following using the
   example from Section 2 (line breaks for display purposes only):

  GET /authorize?response_type=code
     &client_id=s6BhdRkqt3
     &state=af0ifjsldkj
     &redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fclient.example.org%2Fcb
     &code_challenge_method=S256
     &code_challenge=K2-ltc83acc4h0c9w6ESC_rEMTJ3bwc-uCHaoeK1t8U
     &authorization_details=%5B%7B%22type%22%3A%22account%5Finfo
     rmation%22%2C%22actions%22%3A%5B%22list%5Faccounts%22%2C%22
     read%5Fbalances%22%2C%22read%5Ftransactions%22%5D%2C%22loca
     tions%22%3A%5B%22https%3A%2F%2Fexample%2Ecom%2Faccounts%22%
     5D%7D%2C%7B%22type%22%3A%22payment%5Finitiation%22%2C%22act
     ions%22%3A%5B%22initiate%22%2C%22status%22%2C%22cancel%22%5
     D%2C%22locations%22%3A%5B%22https%3A%2F%2Fexample%2Ecom%2Fp
     ayments%22%5D%2C%22instructedAmount%22%3A%7B%22currency%22%
     3A%22EUR%22%2C%22amount%22%3A%22123%2E50%22%7D%2C%22credito
     rName%22%3A%22Merchant123%22%2C%22creditorAccount%22%3A%7B%
     22iban%22%3A%22DE02100100109307118603%22%7D%2C%22remittance
     InformationUnstructured%22%3A%22RefNumberMerchant%22%7D%5D HTTP/1.1
  Host: server.example.com

   Based on the data provided in the "authorization_details" parameter
   the AS will ask the user for consent to the requested access
   permissions.

3.1.  Relationship to "scope" parameter

   "authorization_details" and "scope" can be used in the same
   authorization request for carrying independent authorization
   requirements.

   The AS MUST consider both sets of requirements in combination with
   each other for the given authorization request.  The details of how
   the AS combines these parameters are specific to the APIs being
   protected and outside the scope of this specification.

   It is RECOMMENDED that a given API uses only one form of requirement
   specification.

   When gathering user consent, the AS MUST present the merged set of
   requirements represented by the authorization request.





Lodderstedt, et al.      Expires 11 August 2021                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  February 2021


   If the resource owner grants the client the requested access, the AS
   will issue tokens to the client that are associated with the
   respective "authorization_details" (and scope values, if applicable).

3.2.  Relationship to "resource" parameter

   The "resource" authorization request parameter as defined in
   [RFC8707] can be used to further determine the resources where the
   requested scope can be applied.  The "resource" parameter does not
   have any impact on the way the AS processes the
   "authorization_details" parameter.

4.  Authorization Response

   This specification does not define extensions to the authorization
   response.

5.  Authorization Error Response

   The AS MUST refuse to process any unknown authorization data type or
   authorization details not conforming to the respective type
   definition.  If any of the objects in "authorization_details"
   contains an unknown authorization data type or an object of known
   type but containing unknown elements or elements of the wrong type,
   the AS MUST abort processing and respond with an error
   "invalid_authorization_details" to the client.

6.  Token Request

   The "resource" token request parameter as defined in [RFC8707] MAY be
   used in the token request to request the creation of an audience
   restricted access token (as recommended in
   [I-D.ietf-oauth-security-topics]).  If the client uses this
   parameter, the AS MUST consider the audience restriction defined by
   the "locations" elements of the "authorization_details" to filter the
   authorization data objects applicable to the respective resource(s).

   The logic is as follows:

   *  For every authorization details object without a "locations"
      element: the authorization server treats it as applicable to all
      resources, i.e. it assigns this authorization details object to
      the access token.








Lodderstedt, et al.      Expires 11 August 2021                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  February 2021


   *  For every authorization details object with a "locations" element:
      the authorization server adds this object to the access token, if
      at least one of the "locations" values exactly matches the
      "resource" token request parameter value.  The authorization
      server MUST compare both values using an exact byte match of the
      string values.

   For example the following token request selects authorization details
   applicable for the resource server represented by the URI
   "https://example.com/payments".

   POST /token HTTP/1.1
   Host: as.example.com
   Authorization: Basic czZCaGRSa3F0MzpnWDFmQmF0M2JW
   Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded

   grant_type=authorization_code&code=SplxlOBeZQQYbYS6WxSbIA
   &redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fclient%2Eexample%2Ecom%2Fcb
   &resource=https%3A%2F%2Fexample%2Ecom%2Fpayments

   Using the example given above, this request would result in the
   assignment of the "payment_initiation" authorization details object
   from (#authz_details) to the access token to be issued (see below).

7.  Token Response

   In addition to the token response parameters as defined in [RFC6749],
   the authorization server MUST also return the authorization details
   as granted by the resource owner and assigned to the respective
   access token.

   For our running example, this would look like this:



















Lodderstedt, et al.      Expires 11 August 2021                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  February 2021


   HTTP/1.1 200 OK
   Content-Type: application/json
   Cache-Control: no-cache, no-store

   {
      "access_token": "2YotnFZFEjr1zCsicMWpAA",
      "token_type": "example",
      "expires_in": 3600,
      "refresh_token": "tGzv3JOkF0XG5Qx2TlKWIA",
      "authorization_details": [
         {
            "type": "https://www.someorg.com/payment_initiation",
            "actions": [
               "initiate",
               "status",
               "cancel"
            ],
            "locations": [
               "https://example.com/payments"
            ],
            "instructedAmount": {
               "currency": "EUR",
               "amount": "123.50"
            },
            "creditorName": "Merchant123",
            "creditorAccount": {
               "iban": "DE02100100109307118603"
            },
            "remittanceInformationUnstructured": "Ref Number Merchant"
         }
      ]
   }

7.1.  Enriched authorization details in Token Response

   The authorization details attached to the access token MAY differ
   from what the client requests.  In addition to the user authorizing
   less than what the client requested, there are use cases where the
   authorization server enriches the data in an authorization details
   object.  For example, a client may ask for access to account
   information but leave the decision about the accounts it will be able
   to access to the user.  The user would select the sub set of accounts
   they wants the client to entitle to access in the course of the
   authorization process.  In order to allow the client to determine the
   accounts it is entitled to access, the authorization server will add
   this information to the respective authorization details object.





Lodderstedt, et al.      Expires 11 August 2021                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  February 2021


   As an example, the requested authorization detail parameter could
   look like this:

   "authorization_details": [
      {
         "type": "account_information",
         "access": {
            "accounts": [],
            "balances": [],
            "transactions": []
         },
         "recurringIndicator":true
      }
   ]

   The authorization server then would expand the authorization details
   object and add the respective account identifiers.


































Lodderstedt, et al.      Expires 11 August 2021                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  February 2021


   HTTP/1.1 200 OK
   Content-Type: application/json
   Cache-Control: no-cache, no-store

   {
      "access_token":"2YotnFZFEjr1zCsicMWpAA",
      "token_type":"example",
      "expires_in":3600,
      "refresh_token":"tGzv3JokF0XG5Qx2TlKWIA",
      "authorization_details":[
         {
            "type":"account_information",
            "access":{
               "accounts":[
                  {
                     "iban":"DE2310010010123456789"
                  },
                  {
                     "maskedPan":"123456xxxxxx1234"
                  }
               ],
               "balances":[
                  {
                     "iban":"DE2310010010123456789"
                  }
               ],
               "transactions":[
                  {
                     "iban":"DE2310010010123456789"
                  },
                  {
                     "maskedPan":"123456xxxxxx1234"
                  }
               ]
            },
            "recurringIndicator":true
         }
      ]
   }

   For another example, the client is asking for access to a medical
   record but does not know the record number at request time.  In this
   example, the client specifies the type of access it wants but doesn't
   specify the location or identifier of that access.







Lodderstedt, et al.      Expires 11 August 2021                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  February 2021


   {
   "authorization_details": [
      {
         "type": "medical_record",
         "sens": [ "HIV", "ETH", "MART" ],
         "actions": [ "read" ],
         "datatypes": [ "Patient", "Observation", "Appointment" ]
      }
   ]

   When the user interacts with the AS, they select which of the medical
   records they are responsible for to give to the client.  This
   information gets returned with the access token.

   {
      "access_token":"2YotnFZFEjr1zCsicMWpAA",
      "token_type":"example",
      "expires_in":3600,
      "refresh_token":"tGzv3JokF0XG5Qx2TlKWIA",
      "authorization_details":[
       {
         "type": "medical_record",
         "sens": [ "HIV", "ETH", "MART" ],
         "actions": [ "read" ],
         "datatypes": [ "Patient", "Observation", "Appointment" ]
         "identifier": "patient-541235",
         "locations": [ "https://records.example.com/" ]
        }
     ]
   }

   Note: the client needs to be aware upfront of the possibility that a
   certain authorization details object can be enriched.  It is assumned
   that this property is part of the definition of the respective
   authorization details type.

8.  Resource Servers

   In order to enable the RS to enforce the authorization details as
   approved in the authorization process, the AS MUST make this data
   available to the RS.  The AS MAY add the "authorization_details"
   element to access tokens in JWT format or to Token Introspection
   responses.








Lodderstedt, et al.      Expires 11 August 2021                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  February 2021


8.1.  JWT-based Access Tokens

   If the access token is a JWT [RFC7519], the AS is RECOMMENDED to add
   the "authorization_details" object, filtered to the specific
   audience, as top-level claim.

   The AS will typically also add further claims to the JWT the RS
   requires for request processing, e.g., user id, roles, and
   transaction specific data.  What claims the particular RS requires is
   defined by the RS-specific policy with the AS.

   The following shows the contents of an example JWT for the payment
   initation example above:

   {
      "iss": "https://as.example.com",
      "sub": "24400320",
      "aud": "a7AfcPcsl2",
      "exp": 1311281970,
      "acr": "psd2_sca",
      "txn": "8b4729cc-32e4-4370-8cf0-5796154d1296",
      "authorization_details": [
         {
            "type": "https://www.someorg.com/payment_initiation",
            "actions": [
               "initiate",
               "status",
               "cancel"
            ],
            "locations": [
               "https://example.com/payments"
            ],
            "instructedAmount": {
               "currency": "EUR",
               "amount": "123.50"
            },
            "creditorName": "Merchant123",
            "creditorAccount": {
               "iban": "DE02100100109307118603"
            },
            "remittanceInformationUnstructured": "Ref Number Merchant"
         }
      ],
      "debtorAccount": {
         "iban": "DE40100100103307118608",
         "user_role": "owner"
      }
   }



Lodderstedt, et al.      Expires 11 August 2021                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  February 2021


   In this case, the AS added the following example claims:

   *  "sub": conveys the user on which behalf the client is asking for
      payment initation

   *  "txn": transaction id used to trace the transaction across the
      services of provider "example.com"

   *  "debtorAccount": API-specific element containing the debtor
      account.  In the example, this account was not passed in the
      authorization details but selected by the user during the
      authorization process.  The field "user_role" conveys the role the
      user has with respect to this particuar account.  In this case,
      they is the owner.  This data is used for access control at the
      payment API (the RS).

8.2.  Token Introspection

   In case of opaque access tokens, the data provided to a certain RS is
   determined using the RS's identifier with the AS (see
   [I-D.ietf-oauth-jwt-introspection-response], section 3).

   The token endpoint response provides the RS with the authorization
   details applicable to it as a top-level JSON element along with the
   claims the RS requires for request processing.

   Here is an example for the payment initation example RS:
























Lodderstedt, et al.      Expires 11 August 2021                [Page 20]


Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  February 2021


   {
      "active": true,
      "sub": "24400320",
      "aud": "s6BhdRkqt3",
      "exp": 1311281970,
      "acr": "psd2_sca",
      "txn": "8b4729cc-32e4-4370-8cf0-5796154d1296",
      "authorization_details": [
         {
            "type": "https://www.someorg.com/payment_initiation",
            "actions": [
               "initiate",
               "status",
               "cancel"
            ],
            "locations": [
               "https://example.com/payments"
            ],
            "instructedAmount": {
               "currency": "EUR",
               "amount": "123.50"
            },
            "creditorName": "Merchant123",
            "creditorAccount": {
               "iban": "DE02100100109307118603"
            },
            "remittanceInformationUnstructured": "Ref Number Merchant"
         }
      ],
      "debtorAccount": {
         "iban": "DE40100100103307118608",
         "user_role": "owner"
      }
   }

9.  Metadata

   The AS advertises support for "authorization_details" using the
   metadata parameter "authorization_details_supported" of type boolean.

   The authorization data types supported can be determined using the
   metadata parameter "authorization_data_types_supported", which is an
   JSON array.

   Clients announce the authorization data types they use in the new
   dynamic client registration parameter "authorization_data_types".





Lodderstedt, et al.      Expires 11 August 2021                [Page 21]


Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  February 2021


   The registration of new authorization data types with the AS is out
   of scope of this draft.

10.  Scope value "openid" and "claims" parameter

   OpenID Connect [OIDC] specifies the JSON-based "claims" request
   parameter that can be used to specify the claims a client (acting as
   OpenID Connect Relying Party) wishes to receive in a fine-grained and
   privacy preserving way as well as assign those claims to a certain
   delivery mechanisms, i.e. ID Token or userinfo response.

   The combination of the scope value "openid" and the additional
   parameter "claims" can be used beside "authorization_details" in the
   same way as every non-OIDC scope value.

   Alternatively, there could be an authorization data type for OpenID
   Connect.  Appendix A.1 gives an example of what such an authorization
   data type could look like.

11.  Implementation Considerations

11.1.  Using authorization details in a certain deployment

   Using authorization details in a certain deployment will require the
   follwowing steps:

   *  Define authorization details types (might include definition and
      publication of JSON schemas)

   *  Publish authorization details types in the OAuth server metadata

   *  Determine how authorization details are shown to the user in the
      user consent

   *  (if needed) Enrich authorization details in the user consent
      process (e.g. add selected accounts or set expirations)

   *  (if needed) Determine how authorization details are reflected in
      access token content or introspection responses

   *  Determine how the resource server(s) process(s) the authorization
      details or token data derived from authorization details

11.2.  Minimal product support

   Products supporting this specification should provide the following
   basic functions:




Lodderstedt, et al.      Expires 11 August 2021                [Page 22]


Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  February 2021


   *  Support advertisement of supported authorization details types in
      OAuth server metadata

   *  Accept "authorization_details" parameter in authorization requests
      including basic syntax check for compliance with this
      specification

   *  Support storage of consented authorization_details as part of a
      grant

   *  Implement default behavior for adding authorization details to
      access tokens and token introspection responses in order to make
      them available to resource servers (similar to scope values).
      This should work with any grant type, espceially
      "authorization_code" and "refresh_token".

   *  If the product supports resource indicators, it should also
      support filtering of the authorization details to be assigned to
      access tokens using the "resource" token request parameter.

   Processing and presentation of authorization details will vary
   significantly among different authorization data types.  Products
   should therefore support customization of the respective behavior.
   In particular products should

   *  allow deployments to determine presentation of the
      authorization_details

   *  allow deployments to modify requested authorization_details in the
      user consent process, e.g. adding fields

   *  allow deployments to merge requested and pre-existing
      authorization_details

   One option would be to have a mechanism allowing the registration of
   extension modules, each of them responsible for rendering the
   respective user consent and any transformation needed to provide the
   data needed to the resource server by way of structured access tokens
   or token introspection responses.

11.3.  Large requests

   Authorization request URIs containing authorization details in a
   request parameter or a request object can become very long.
   Implementers SHOULD therefore consider using the "request_uri"
   parameter as defined in [I-D.ietf-oauth-jwsreq] in combination with
   the pushed request object mechanism as defined in
   [I-D.ietf-oauth-par] to pass authorization details in a reliable and



Lodderstedt, et al.      Expires 11 August 2021                [Page 23]


Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  February 2021


   secure manner.  Here is an example of such a pushed authorization
   request that sends the authorization request data directly to the AS
   via a HTTPS-protected connection:

     POST /as/par HTTP/1.1
     Host: as.example.com
     Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
     Authorization: Basic czZCaGRSa3F0Mzo3RmpmcDBaQnIxS3REUmJuZlZkbUl3

     response_type=code&
     client_id=s6BhdRkqt3
     &state=af0ifjsldkj
     &redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fclient.example.org%2Fcb
     &code_challenge_method=S256
     &code_challenge=K2-ltc83acc4h0c9w6ESC_rEMTJ3bwc-uCHaoeK1t8U
     &authorization_details=%5B%7B%22type%22%3A%22account_information%22
     %2C%22actions%22%3A%5B%22list_accounts%22%2C%22read_balances%22%2C%
     22read_transactions%22%5D%2C%22locations%22%3A%5B%22https%3A%2F%2Fe
     xample.com%2Faccounts%22%5D%7D%2C%7B%22type%22%3A%22payment_initiat
     ion%22%2C%22actions%22%3A%5B%22initiate%22%2C%22status%22%2C%22canc
     el%22%5D%2C%22locations%22%3A%5B%22https%3A%2F%2Fexample.com%2Fpaym
     ents%22%5D%2C%22instructedAmount%22%3A%7B%22currency%22%3A%22EUR%22
     %2C%22amount%22%3A%22123.50%22%7D%2C%22creditorName%22%3A%22Merchan
     t123%22%2C%22creditorAccount%22%3A%7B%22iban%22%3A%22DE021001001093
     07118603%22%7D%2C%22remittanceInformationUnstructured%22%3A%22Ref%2
     0Number%20Merchant%22%7D%5D

12.  Security Considerations

   Authorization details are sent through the user agent in case of an
   OAuth authorization request, which makes them vulnerable to
   modifications by the user.  In order to ensure their integrity, the
   client SHOULD send authorization details in a signed request object
   as defined in [I-D.ietf-oauth-jwsreq] or use the "request_uri"
   authorization request parameter as defined in [I-D.ietf-oauth-jwsreq]
   to pass the URI of the request object to the authorization server.

   All strings MUST be compared using the exact byte representation of
   the characters as defined by [RFC8259].  This is especially true for
   the "type" field, which dictates which other fields and functions are
   allowed in the request.  The server MUST NOT perform any form of
   collation, transformation, or equivalence on the string values.

13.  Privacy Considerations

   Implementers MUST design and use authorization details in a privacy
   preserving manner.




Lodderstedt, et al.      Expires 11 August 2021                [Page 24]


Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  February 2021


   Any sensitive personal data included in authorization details MUST be
   prevented from leaking, e.g., through referrer headers.
   Implementation options include encrypted request objects as defined
   in [I-D.ietf-oauth-jwsreq] or transmission of authorization details
   via end-to-end encrypted connections between client and authorization
   server by utilizing the "request_uri" authorization request parameter
   as defined in [I-D.ietf-oauth-jwsreq].

   Even if the request data is encrypted, an attacker could use the
   authorization server to learn the user data by injecting the
   encrypted request data into an authorization request on a device
   under his control and use the authorization server's user consent
   screens to show the (decrypted) user data in the clear.
   Implementations MUST consider this attacker vector and implement
   appropriate counter measures, e.g. by only showing portions of the
   data or, if possible, determing whether the assumed user context is
   still the same (after user authentication).

   The AS MUST take into consideration the privacy implications when
   sharing authorization details with the resource servers.  The AS
   SHOULD share this data with the resource servers on a "need to know"
   basis.

14.  Acknowledgements

   We would would like to thank Daniel Fett, Sebastian Ebling, Dave
   Tonge, Mike Jones, Nat Sakimura, and Rob Otto for their valuable
   feedback during the preparation of this draft.

   We would also like to thank Vladimir Dzhuvinov, Takahiko Kawasaki,
   Daniel Fett, Dave Tonge, Travis Spencer, Jørgen Binningsbø,
   Aamund Bremer, Steinar Noem, and Aaron Parecki for their valuable
   feedback to this draft.

15.  IANA Considerations

   TBD

   *  "authorization_details" as JWT claim

   *  "authorization_details_supported" and
      "authorization_data_types_supported" as metadata parameters

   *  "authorization_data_types" as dynamic client registration
      parameter






Lodderstedt, et al.      Expires 11 August 2021                [Page 25]


Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  February 2021


   *  [[ possibly establish authorization data type registry (and
      declare: "type", "actions", "locations", "datatypes",
      "identifier", others?) ]]

   *  [[ register type "openid_claims" on a URL by the OpenID
      foundation? ]]

   *  register invalid_authorization_details to OAuth Extensions Error
      Registry

16.  Normative References

   [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>.

   [RFC8707]  Campbell, B., Bradley, J., and H. Tschofenig, "Resource
              Indicators for OAuth 2.0", RFC 8707, DOI 10.17487/RFC8707,
              February 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8707>.

   [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>.

   [RFC6749]  Hardt, D., Ed., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework",
              RFC 6749, DOI 10.17487/RFC6749, October 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6749>.

   [RFC7521]  Campbell, B., Mortimore, C., Jones, M., and Y. Goland,
              "Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication
              and Authorization Grants", RFC 7521, DOI 10.17487/RFC7521,
              May 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7521>.

   [RFC8628]  Denniss, W., Bradley, J., Jones, M., and H. Tschofenig,
              "OAuth 2.0 Device Authorization Grant", RFC 8628,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8628, August 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8628>.

   [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>.

17.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-oauth-jwt-introspection-response]
              Lodderstedt, T. and V. Dzhuvinov, "JWT Response for OAuth
              Token Introspection", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,



Lodderstedt, et al.      Expires 11 August 2021                [Page 26]


Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  February 2021


              draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-introspection-response-10, 18 October
              2020, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-
              introspection-response-10>.

   [OIDC]     Sakimura, N., Bradley, J., Jones, M., de Medeiros, B., and
              C. Mortimore, "OpenID Connect Core 1.0 incorporating
              errata set 1", 8 November 2014,
              <http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html>.

   [ETSI]     ETSI, "ETSI TS 119 432, Electronic Signatures and
              Infrastructures (ESI); Protocols for remote digital
              signature creation", 20 March 2019,
              <https://www.etsi.org/deliver/
              etsi_ts/119400_119499/119432/01.01.01_60/
              ts_119432v010101p.pdf>.

   [OpenID.CIBA]
              Fernandez, G., Walter, F., Nennker, A., Tonge, D., and B.
              Campbell, "OpenID Connect Client Initiated Backchannel
              Authentication Flow - Core 1.0", 16 January 2019,
              <https://openid.net/specs/openid-client-initiated-
              backchannel-authentication-core-1_0.html>.

   [I-D.ietf-oauth-jwsreq]
              Sakimura, N., Bradley, J., and M. Jones, "The OAuth 2.0
              Authorization Framework: JWT Secured Authorization Request
              (JAR)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
              oauth-jwsreq-30, 10 September 2020,
              <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-30>.

   [I-D.ietf-oauth-security-topics]
              Lodderstedt, T., Bradley, J., Labunets, A., and D. Fett,
              "OAuth 2.0 Security Best Current Practice", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-oauth-security-
              topics-16, 5 October 2020, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/
              draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-16>.

   [I-D.ietf-oauth-par]
              Lodderstedt, T., Campbell, B., Sakimura, N., Tonge, D.,
              and F. Skokan, "OAuth 2.0 Pushed Authorization Requests",
              Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-oauth-par-05,
              14 December 2020,
              <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-par-05>.

   [RFC8259]  Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
              Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, December 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8259>.



Lodderstedt, et al.      Expires 11 August 2021                [Page 27]


Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  February 2021


   [CSC]      Consortium, C. S., "Architectures and protocols for remote
              signature applications", 1 June 2019,
              <https://cloudsignatureconsortium.org/wp-
              content/uploads/2019/07/CSC_API_V1_1.0.4.0.pdf>.

   [transaction-authorization]
              Lodderstedt, T., "Transaction Authorization or why we need
              to re-think OAuth scopes", 20 April 2019,
              <https://medium.com/oauth-2/transaction-authorization-or-
              why-we-need-to-re-think-oauth-scopes-2326e2038948>.

Appendix A.  Additional Examples

A.1.  OpenID Connect

   These hypothetical examples try to encapsulate all details specific
   to the OpenID Connect part of an authorization process into an
   authorization JSON object.

   The top-level elements are based on the definitions given in [OIDC]:

   *  "claim_sets": names of predefined claim sets, replacement for
      respective scope values, such as "profile"

   *  "max_age": Maximum Authentication Age

   *  "acr_values": array of ACR values

   *  "claims": the "claims" JSON structure as defined in [OIDC]

   This is a simple request for some claim sets.

   [
      {
         "type": "openid",
         "locations": [
            "https://op.example.com/userinfo"
         ],
         "claim_sets": [
            "email",
            "profile"
         ]
      }
   ]

   Note: "locations" specifies the location of the userinfo endpoint
   since this is the only place where an access token is used by a
   client (RP) in OpenID Connect to obtain claims.



Lodderstedt, et al.      Expires 11 August 2021                [Page 28]


Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  February 2021


   A more sophisticated example is shown in the following

   [
      {
         "type": "openid",
         "locations": [
            "https://op.example.com/userinfo"
         ],
         "max_age": 86400,
         "acr_values": "urn:mace:incommon:iap:silver",
         "claims": {
            "userinfo": {
               "given_name": {
                  "essential": true
               },
               "nickname": null,
               "email": {
                  "essential": true
               },
               "email_verified": {
                  "essential": true
               },
               "picture": null,
               "http://example.info/claims/groups": null
            },
            "id_token": {
               "auth_time": {
                  "essential": true
               }
            }
         }
      }
   ]

A.2.  Remote Electronic Signing

   The following example is based on the concept layed out for remote
   electronic signing in ETSI TS 119 432 [ETSI] and the CSC API for
   remote signature creation [CSC].












Lodderstedt, et al.      Expires 11 August 2021                [Page 29]


Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  February 2021


   [
      {
         "type": "sign",
         "locations": [
            "https://signing.example.com/signdoc"
         ],
         "credentialID": "60916d31-932e-4820-ba82-1fcead1c9ea3",
         "documentDigests": [
            {
               "hash": "sTOgwOm+474gFj0q0x1iSNspKqbcse4IeiqlDg/HWuI=",
               "label": "Credit Contract"
            },
            {
               "hash": "HZQzZmMAIWekfGH0/ZKW1nsdt0xg3H6bZYztgsMTLw0=",
               "label": "Contract Payment Protection Insurance"
            }
         ],
         "hashAlgorithmOID": "2.16.840.1.101.3.4.2.1"
      }
   ]

   The top-level elements have the following meaning:

   *  "credentialID": identifier of the certificate to be used for
      signing

   *  "documentDigests": array containing the hash of every document to
      be signed ("hash" elements).  Additionally, the corresponding
      "label" element identifies the respective document to the user,
      e.g. to be used in user consent.

   *  "hashAlgorithm": algomrithm that was used to calculate the hash
      values.

   The AS is supposed to ask the user for consent for the creation of
   signatues for the documents listed in the structure.  The client uses
   the access token issued as result of the process to call the sign doc
   endpoint at the respective signing service to actually create the
   signature.  This access token is bound to the client, the user id and
   the hashes (and signature algorithm) as consented by the user.

A.3.  Access to Tax Data

   This example is inspired by an API allowing third parties to access
   citizen's tax declarations and income statements, for example to
   determine their credit worthiness.





Lodderstedt, et al.      Expires 11 August 2021                [Page 30]


Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  February 2021


   [
       {
           "type": "tax_data",
           "locations": [
               "https://taxservice.govehub.no"
           ],
           "actions":"read_tax_declaration",
           "periods": ["2018"],
           "duration_of_access": 30,
           "tax_payer_id": "23674185438934"
       }
   ]

   The top-level elements have the following meaning:

   *  "periods": determines the periods the client wants to access

   *  "duration_of_access": how long does the client intend to access
      the data in days

   *  "tax_payer_id": identifier of the tax payer (if known to the
      client)

A.4.  eHealth

   These two examples are inspired by requirements for APIs used in the
   Norwegian eHealth system.

   In this use case the physical therapist sits in front of her computer
   using a local Electronic Health Records (EHR) system.  They wants to
   look at the electronic patient records of a certain patient and they
   also wants to fetch the patients journal entries in another system,
   perhaps at another institution or a national service.  Access to this
   data is provided by an API.

   The information necessary to authorize the request at the API is only
   known by the EHR system, and must be presented to the API.

   In the first example the authorization details object contains the
   identifier of an organization.  In this case the API needs to know if
   the given organization has the lawful basis for processing personal
   health information to give access to sensitive data.









Lodderstedt, et al.      Expires 11 August 2021                [Page 31]


Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  February 2021


   "authorization_details":{
       "type":"patient_record",
       "requesting_entity": {
           "type": "Practitioner",
           "identifier": [
           {
               "system": " urn:oid:2.16.578.1.12.4.1.4.4",
               "value": "1234567"
           }],
           "practitioner_role":{
               "organization":{
                   "identifier": {
                       "system":"urn:oid:2.16.578.1.12.4.1.2.101",
                       "type":"ENH",
                       "value":"[organizational number]"
                   }
               }
           }
       }
   }

   In the second example the API requires more information to authorize
   the request.  In this case the authorization details object contains
   additional information about the health institution and the current
   profession the user has at the time of the request.  The additional
   level of detail could be used for both authorization and data
   minimization.

   [
      {
         "type": "patient_record",
         "location": "https://fhir.example.com/patient",
         "actions": [
            "read"
         ],
         "patient_identifier": [
            {
               "system": "urn:oid:2.16.578.1.12.4.1.4.1",
               "value": "12345678901"
            }
         ],
         "reason_for_request": "Clinical treatment",
         "requesting_entity": {
            "type": "Practitioner",
            "identifier": [
               {
                  "system": " urn:oid:2.16.578.1.12.4.1.4.4",
                  "value": "1234567"



Lodderstedt, et al.      Expires 11 August 2021                [Page 32]


Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  February 2021


               }
            ],
            "practitioner_role": {
               "organization": {
                  "identifier": [
                     {
                        "system": "urn:oid:2.16.578.1.12.4.1.2.101",
                        "type": "ENH",
                        "value": "<organizational number>"
                     }
                  ],
                  "type": {
                     "coding": [
                        {
                           "system":
                              "http://hl7.org/fhir/organization-type",
                           "code": "dept",
                           "display": "Hospital Department"
                        }
                     ]
                  },
                  "name": "Akuttmottak"
               },
               "profession": {
                  "coding": [
                     {
                        "system": "http://snomed.info/sct",
                        "code": "36682004",
                        "display": "Physical therapist"
                     }
                  ]
               }
            }
         }
      }
   ]

   Description of the elements:

   *  "patient_identifier": the identifier of the patient composed of a
      system identifier in OID format (namespace) and the acutal value
      within this namespace.

   *  "reason_for_request": the reason why the user wants to access a
      certain API






Lodderstedt, et al.      Expires 11 August 2021                [Page 33]


Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  February 2021


   *  "requesting_entity": specification of the requester by means of
      identity, role and organizational context.  This data is provided
      to facilitate authorization and for auditing purposes.

   In this use case, the AS authenticates the requester, who is not the
   patient, and approves access based on policies.

Appendix B.  Document History

   [[ To be removed from the final specification ]]

   -04

   *  restructured draft for better readability

   *  added implemnentation considerations for deployments and products

   *  added type union language from GNAP

   -03

   *  Updated references to current revisions or RFC numbers

   *  Added section about enrichment of authorization details objects by
      the AS

   *  Clarified processing of unknown authorization details parameters

   *  clarified dependencies between "resource" and
      "authorization_details" parameters

   -02

   *  Clarify "type" parameter processing

   -01

   *  Minor fix-up in a few examples

   -00 (WG draft)

   *  initial WG revision

   -03

   *  Reworked examples to illustrate privacy preserving use of
      "authorization_details"




Lodderstedt, et al.      Expires 11 August 2021                [Page 34]


Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  February 2021


   *  Added text on audience restriction

   *  Added description of relationship between "scope" and
      "authorization_details"

   *  Added text on token request & response and "authorization_details"

   *  Added text on how authorization details are conveyed to RSs by
      JWTs or token endpoint response

   *  Added description of relationship between "claims" and
      "authorization_details"

   *  Added more example from different sectors

   *  Clarified string comparison to be byte-exact without collation

   -02

   *  Added Security Considerations

   *  Added Privacy Considerations

   *  Added notes on URI size and authorization details

   *  Added requirement to return the effective authorization details
      granted by the resource owner in the token response

   *  changed "authorization_details" structure from object to array

   *  added Justin Richer & Brian Campbell as Co-Authors

   -00 / -01

   *  first draft

Authors' Addresses

   Torsten Lodderstedt
   yes.com

   Email: torsten@lodderstedt.net


   Justin Richer
   Bespoke Engineering

   Email: ietf@justin.richer.org



Lodderstedt, et al.      Expires 11 August 2021                [Page 35]


Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  February 2021


   Brian Campbell
   Ping Identity

   Email: bcampbell@pingidentity.com















































Lodderstedt, et al.      Expires 11 August 2021                [Page 36]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/