[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits] [IPR]
Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 RFC 6749
Network Working Group E. Hammer-Lahav, Ed.
Internet-Draft Yahoo!
Obsoletes: 5849 (if approved) D. Recordon
Intended status: Standards Track Facebook
Expires: January 26, 2012 D. Hardt
Microsoft
July 25, 2011
The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Protocol
draft-ietf-oauth-v2-19
Abstract
The OAuth 2.0 authorization protocol enables a third-party
application to obtain limited access to an HTTP service, either on
behalf of a resource owner by orchestrating an approval interaction
between the resource owner and the HTTP service, or by allowing the
third-party application to obtain access on its own behalf.
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 http://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 January 26, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 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
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.1. Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2. Protocol Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3. Access Token . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.4. Authorization Grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.4.1. Authorization Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.4.2. Implicit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.4.3. Resource Owner Password Credentials . . . . . . . . . 9
1.4.4. Client Credentials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.4.5. Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.5. Refresh Token . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.6. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2. Client Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.1. Client Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2. Registration Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.3. Client Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.4. Client Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.4.1. Client Password . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.4.2. Other Authentication Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.5. Unregistered Clients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3. Protocol Endpoints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.1. Authorization Endpoint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.1.1. Response Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.1.2. Redirection Endpoint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.2. Token Endpoint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.2.1. Client Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4. Obtaining Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.1. Authorization Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.1.1. Authorization Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.1.2. Authorization Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.1.3. Access Token Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.1.4. Access Token Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.2. Implicit Grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.2.1. Authorization Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.2.2. Access Token Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.3. Resource Owner Password Credentials . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.3.1. Authorization Request and Response . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.3.2. Access Token Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.3.3. Access Token Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.4. Client Credentials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.4.1. Authorization Request and Response . . . . . . . . . . 35
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
4.4.2. Access Token Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.4.3. Access Token Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.5. Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
5. Issuing an Access Token . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
5.1. Successful Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
5.2. Error Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
6. Refreshing an Access Token . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
7. Accessing Protected Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
7.1. Access Token Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
8. Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
8.1. Defining Access Token Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
8.2. Defining New Endpoint Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
8.3. Defining New Authorization Grant Types . . . . . . . . . 44
8.4. Defining New Authorization Endpoint Response Types . . . 44
8.5. Defining Additional Error Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
9. Native Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
10.1. Client Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
10.2. Client Impersonation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
10.3. Access Tokens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
10.4. Refresh Tokens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
10.5. Authorization Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
10.6. Authorization Code Leakage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
10.7. Resource Owner Password Credentials . . . . . . . . . . . 49
10.8. Request Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
10.9. Endpoints Authenticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
10.10. Credentials Guessing Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
10.11. Phishing Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
10.12. Cross-Site Request Forgery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
10.13. Clickjacking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
10.14. Code Injection and Input Validation . . . . . . . . . . . 52
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
11.1. The OAuth Access Token Type Registry . . . . . . . . . . 52
11.1.1. Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
11.2. The OAuth Parameters Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
11.2.1. Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
11.2.2. Initial Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
11.3. The OAuth Authorization Endpoint Response Type
Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
11.3.1. Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
11.3.2. Initial Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
11.4. The OAuth Extensions Error Registry . . . . . . . . . . . 58
11.4.1. Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Appendix A. Editor's Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
1. Introduction
In the traditional client-server authentication model, the client
accesses a protected resource on the server by authenticating with
the server using the resource owner's credentials. In order to
provide third-party applications access to protected resources, the
resource owner shares its credentials with the third-party. This
creates several problems and limitations:
o Third-party applications are required to store the resource
owner's credentials for future use, typically a password in clear-
text.
o Servers are required to support password authentication, despite
the security weaknesses created by passwords.
o Third-party applications gain overly broad access to the resource
owner's protected resources, leaving resource owners without any
ability to restrict duration or access to a limited subset of
resources.
o Resource owners cannot revoke access to an individual third-party
without revoking access to all third-parties, and must do so by
changing their password.
o Compromise of any third-party application results in compromise of
the end-user's password and all of the data protected by that
password.
OAuth addresses these issues by introducing an authorization layer
and separating the role of the client from that of the resource
owner. In OAuth, the client requests access to resources controlled
by the resource owner and hosted by the resource server, and is
issued a different set of credentials than those of the resource
owner.
Instead of using the resource owner's credentials to access protected
resources, the client obtains an access token - a string denoting a
specific scope, lifetime, and other access attributes. Access tokens
are issued to third-party clients by an authorization server with the
approval of the resource owner. The client uses the access token to
access the protected resources hosted by the resource server.
For example, an end-user (resource owner) can grant a printing
service (client) access to her protected photos stored at a photo
sharing service (resource server), without sharing her username and
password with the printing service. Instead, she authenticates
directly with a server trusted by the photo sharing service
(authorization server) which issues the printing service delegation-
specific credentials (access token).
This specification is designed for use with HTTP [RFC2616]. The use
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
of OAuth with any transport protocol other than HTTP is undefined.
1.1. Roles
OAuth includes four roles working together to grant and provide
access to protected resources - access restricted resources requiring
authentication:
resource owner
An entity capable of granting access to a protected resource (e.g.
end-user).
resource server
The server hosting the protected resources, capable of accepting
and responding to protected resource requests using access tokens.
client
An application making protected resource requests on behalf of the
resource owner and with its authorization.
authorization server
The server issuing access tokens to the client after successfully
authenticating the resource owner and obtaining authorization.
The interaction between the authorization server and resource server
is beyond the scope of this specification. The authorization server
may be the same server as the resource server or a separate entity.
A single authorization server may issue access tokens accepted by
multiple resource servers.
1.2. Protocol Flow
+--------+ +---------------+
| |--(A)- Authorization Request ->| Resource |
| | | Owner |
| |<-(B)-- Authorization Grant ---| |
| | +---------------+
| |
| | +---------------+
| |--(C)-- Authorization Grant -->| Authorization |
| Client | | Server |
| |<-(D)----- Access Token -------| |
| | +---------------+
| |
| | +---------------+
| |--(E)----- Access Token ------>| Resource |
| | | Server |
| |<-(F)--- Protected Resource ---| |
+--------+ +---------------+
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
Figure 1: Abstract Protocol Flow
The abstract flow illustrated in Figure 1 describes the interaction
between the four roles and includes the following steps:
(A) The client requests authorization from the resource owner. The
authorization request can be made directly to the resource owner
(as shown), or preferably indirectly via an intermediary such as
an authorization server.
(B) The client receives an authorization grant which represents the
authorization provided by the resource owner. The authorization
grant type depends on the method used by the client and
supported by the authorization server to obtain it.
(C) The client requests an access token by authenticating with the
authorization server and presenting the authorization grant.
(D) The authorization server authenticates the client and validates
the authorization grant, and if valid issues an access token.
(E) The client requests the protected resource from the resource
server and authenticates by presenting the access token.
(F) The resource server validates the access token, and if valid,
serves the request.
1.3. Access Token
Access tokens are credentials used to access protected resources. An
access token is a string representing an authorization issued to the
client. The string is usually opaque to the client. Tokens
represent specific scopes and durations of access, granted by the
resource owner, and enforced by the resource server and authorization
server.
The token may denote an identifier used to retrieve the authorization
information, or self-contain the authorization information in a
verifiable manner (i.e. a token string consisting of some data and a
signature). Additional authentication credentials, which are beyond
the scope of this specification, may be required in order for the
client to use a token.
The access token provides an abstraction layer, replacing different
authorization constructs (e.g. username and password) with a single
token understood by the resource server. This abstraction enables
issuing access tokens more restrictive than the authorization grant
used to obtain them, as well as removing the resource server's need
to understand a wide range of authentication methods.
Access tokens can have different formats, structures, and methods of
utilization (e.g. cryptographic properties) based on the resource
server security requirements. Access token attributes and the
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
methods used to access protected resources are beyond the scope of
this specification and are defined by companion specifications.
1.4. Authorization Grant
An authorization grant is a general term used to describe the
intermediate credentials representing the resource owner
authorization (to access its protected resources), and serves as an
abstraction layer. An authorization grant is used by the client to
obtain an access token.
This specification defines four grant types: authorization code,
implicit, resource owner password credentials, and client
credentials, as well as an extensibility mechanism for defining
additional types.
1.4.1. Authorization Code
The authorization code is obtained by using an authorization server
as an intermediary between the client and resource owner. Instead of
requesting authorization directly from the resource owner, the client
directs the resource owner to an authorization server (via its user-
agent as defined in [RFC2616]), which in turn directs the resource
owner back to the client with the authorization code.
Before directing the resource owner back to the client with the
authorization code, the authorization server authenticates the
resource owner and obtains authorization. Because the resource owner
only authenticates with the authorization server, the resource
owner's credentials are never shared with the client.
The authorization code provides a few important security benefits
such as the ability to authenticate the client and issuing the access
token directly to the client without potentially exposing it to
others, including the resource owner.
1.4.2. Implicit
The authorization grant is implicit when an access token is issued to
the client directly as the result of the resource owner
authorization, without using intermediate credentials (such as an
authorization code).
When issuing an implicit grant, the authorization server does not
authenticate the client and the client identity is verified via the
redirection URI used to deliver the access token to the client. The
access token may be exposed to the resource owner or other
applications with access to the resource owner's user-agent.
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
Implicit grants improve the responsiveness and efficiency of some
clients (such as a client implemented as an in-browser application)
since it reduces the number of round trips required to obtain an
access token. However, this convenience should be weighted against
the security implications of using implicit grants, especially when
the authorization code grant type is available.
1.4.3. Resource Owner Password Credentials
The resource owner password credentials (e.g. a username and
password) can be used directly as an authorization grant to obtain an
access token. The credentials should only be used when there is a
high degree of trust between the resource owner and the client (e.g.
its device operating system or a highly privileged application), and
when other authorization grant types are not available (such as an
authorization code).
Even though this grant type requires direct client access to the
resource owner credentials, the resource owner credentials are used
for a single request and are exchanged for an access token. Unlike
the HTTP Basic authentication scheme defined in [RFC2617], this grant
type (when combined with a refresh token) eliminates the need for the
client to store the resource owner credentials for future use.
1.4.4. Client Credentials
The client credentials (or other forms of client authentication) can
be used as an authorization grant when the authorization scope is
limited to the protected resources under the control of the client,
or to protected resources previously arranged with the authorization
server. Client credentials are used as an authorization grant
typically when the client is acting on its own behalf (the client is
also the resource owner).
1.4.5. Extensions
Additional grant types may be defined to provide a bridge between
OAuth and other protocols.
1.5. Refresh Token
Refresh tokens are credentials used to obtain access tokens. Refresh
tokens are issued to the client by the authorization server and are
used to obtain a new access token when the current access token
becomes invalid or expires, or to obtain additional access tokens
with identical or narrower scope (access tokens may have a shorter
lifetime and fewer permissions than authorized by the resource
owner). Issuing a refresh token is optional and is included when
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
issuing an access token.
A refresh token is a string representing the authorization granted to
the client by the resource owner. The string is usually opaque to
the client. The token denotes an identifier used to retrieve the
authorization information. Unlike access tokens, refresh tokens are
intended for use only with authorization servers and are never sent
to resource servers.
+--------+ +---------------+
| |--(A)------- Authorization Grant --------->| |
| | | |
| |<-(B)----------- Access Token -------------| |
| | & Refresh Token | |
| | | |
| | +----------+ | |
| |--(C)---- Access Token ---->| | | |
| | | | | |
| |<-(D)- Protected Resource --| Resource | | Authorization |
| Client | | Server | | Server |
| |--(E)---- Access Token ---->| | | |
| | | | | |
| |<-(F)- Invalid Token Error -| | | |
| | +----------+ | |
| | | |
| |--(G)----------- Refresh Token ----------->| |
| | | |
| |<-(H)----------- Access Token -------------| |
+--------+ & Optional Refresh Token +---------------+
Figure 2: Refreshing an Expired Access Token
The flow illustrated in Figure 2 includes the following steps:
(A) The client requests an access token by authenticating with the
authorization server, and presenting an authorization grant.
(B) The authorization server authenticates the client and validates
the authorization grant, and if valid issues an access token and
a refresh token.
(C) The client makes a protected resource requests to the resource
server by presenting the access token.
(D) The resource server validates the access token, and if valid,
serves the request.
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
(E) Steps (C) and (D) repeat until the access token expires. If the
client knows the access token expired, it skips to step (G),
otherwise it makes another protected resource request.
(F) Since the access token is invalid, the resource server returns
an invalid token error.
(G) The client requests a new access token by authenticating with
the authorization server and presenting the refresh token.
(H) The authorization server authenticates the client and validates
the refresh token, and if valid issues a new access token (and
optionally, a new refresh token).
1.6. Notational Conventions
The key words 'MUST', 'MUST NOT', 'REQUIRED', 'SHALL', 'SHALL NOT',
'SHOULD', 'SHOULD NOT', 'RECOMMENDED', 'MAY', and 'OPTIONAL' in this
specification are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
This specification uses the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF)
notation of [RFC5234].
Certain security-related terms are to be understood in the sense
defined in [RFC4949]. These terms include, but are not limited to,
'attack', 'authentication', 'authorization', 'certificate',
'confidentiality', 'credential', 'encryption', 'identity', 'sign',
'signature', 'trust', 'validate', and 'verify'.
Unless otherwise noted, all the protocol parameter names and values
are case sensitive.
2. Client Registration
Before initiating the protocol, the client registers with the
authorization server. The means through which the client registers
with the authorization server are beyond the scope of this
specification, but typically involve end-user interaction with an
HTML registration form.
Client registration does not require a direct interaction between the
client and the authorization server. When supported by the
authorization server, registration can rely on other means for
establishing trust and obtaining the required client properties (e.g.
redirection URI, client type). For example, registration can be
accomplished using a self-issued or third-party-issued assertion, or
by the authorization server performing client discovery using a
trusted channel.
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
2.1. Client Types
OAuth defines two client types, based on their ability to
authenticate securely with the authorization server (i.e. ability to
maintain the confidentiality of their client credentials):
private
Clients capable of maintaining the confidentiality of their
credentials (e.g. client implemented on a secure server with
restricted access to the client credentials), or capable of secure
client authentication using other means.
public
Clients incapable of maintaining the confidentiality of their
credentials (e.g. clients executing on the resource owner's device
such as an installed native application or a user-agent-based
application), and incapable of secure client authentication via
any other mean.
The client type designation is based on the authorization server's
definition of secure authentication and its acceptable exposure
levels of client credentials.
This specification has been designed around the following client
profiles:
web application
A web application is a private client running on a web server.
Resource owners access the client via an HTML user interface
rendered in a user-agent on the resource owner's device. The
client credentials as well as any access token issued to the
client are stored on the web server and are not exposed to or
accessible by the resource owner.
user-agent-based application
A user-agent-based application is a public client in which the
client code is downloaded from a web server and executes within a
user-agent on the resource owner's device. Protocol data and
credentials are easily accessible (and often visible) to the
resource owner. Since such applications reside within the user-
agent, they can make seamless use of the user-agent capabilities
when requesting authorization.
native application
A native application is a public client installed and executed on
the resource owner's device. Protocol data and credentials are
accessible to the resource owner. It is assumed that any client
authentication credentials included in the application can be
extracted. On the other hand, dynamically issued credentials such
access tokens or refresh tokens, can receive an acceptable level
of protection. At a minimum, these credentials are protected from
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
hostile servers which the application may interact with. On some
platform these credentials might be protected from other
applications residing on the same device.
2.2. Registration Requirements
When registering a client, the client developer:
o specifies the client type as described in Section 2.1,
o provides its client redirection URIs as described in
Section 3.1.2, and
o includes any other information required by the authorization
server (e.g. application name, website, description, logo image,
the acceptance of legal terms).
2.3. Client Identifier
The authorization server issues the registered client a client
identifier - a unique string representing the registration
information provided by the client. The client identifier is not a
secret, it is exposed to the resource owner, and cannot be used alone
for client authentication.
2.4. Client Authentication
If the client type is private, the client and authorization server
establish a client authentication method suitable for the security
requirements of the authorization server. The authorization server
MAY accept any form of client authentication meeting its security
requirements.
Private clients are typically issued (or establish) a set of client
credentials used for authenticating with the authorization server
(e.g. password, public/private key pair).
The authorization server SHOULD NOT make assumptions about the client
type or accept the type information provided without establishing
trust with the client or its developer. The authorization server MAY
establish a client authentication method with public clients.
However, the authorization server MUST NOT rely on public client
authentication for the purpose of identifying the client.
The client MUST NOT use more than one authentication method in each
request.
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
2.4.1. Client Password
Clients in possession of a client password MAY use the HTTP Basic
authentication scheme as defined in [RFC2617] to authenticate with
the authorization server. The client identifier is used as the
username, and the client password is used as the password.
For example (extra line breaks are for display purposes only):
Authorization: Basic czZCaGRSa3F0MzpnWDFmQmF0M2JW
Alternatively, the authorization server MAY allow including the
client credentials in the request body using the following
parameters:
client_id
REQUIRED. The client identifier issued to the client during
the registration process described by Section 2.3.
client_secret
REQUIRED. The client secret.
Including the client credentials in the request body using the two
parameters is NOT RECOMMENDED, and should be limited to clients
unable to directly utilize the HTTP Basic authentication scheme (or
other password-based HTTP authentication schemes).
For example, requesting to refresh an access token (Section 6) using
the body parameters (extra line breaks are for display purposes
only):
POST /token HTTP/1.1
Host: server.example.com
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded;charset=UTF-8
grant_type=refresh_token&refresh_token=tGzv3JOkF0XG5Qx2TlKWIA
&client_id=s6BhdRkqt3&client_secret=7Fjfp0ZBr1KtDRbnfVdmIw
The authorization server MUST require the use of a transport-layer
security mechanism when sending requests to the token endpoint, as
requests using this authentication method result in the transmission
of clear-text credentials.
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
2.4.2. Other Authentication Methods
The authorization server MAY support any suitable HTTP authentication
scheme matching its security requirements. When using other
authentication methods, the authorization server MUST define a
mapping between the client identifier (registration record) and
authentication scheme.
2.5. Unregistered Clients
This specification does not exclude the use of unregistered clients.
However, the use with such clients is beyond the scope of this
specification, and requires additional security analysis and review
of its interoperability impact.
3. Protocol Endpoints
The authorization process utilizes two endpoints (HTTP resources):
o Authorization endpoint - used to obtain authorization from the
resource owner via user-agent redirection.
o Token endpoint - used to exchange an authorization grant for an
access token, typically with client authentication.
Not every authorization grant type utilizes both endpoints.
Extension grant types MAY define additional endpoints as needed.
3.1. Authorization Endpoint
The authorization endpoint is used to interact with the resource
owner and obtain authorization which is expressed explicitly as an
authorization code (later exchanged for an access token), or
implicitly by direct issuance of an access token.
The authorization server MUST first verify the identity of the
resource owner. The way in which the authorization server
authenticates the resource owner (e.g. username and password login,
session cookies) is beyond the scope of this specification.
The means through which the client obtains the location of the
authorization endpoint are beyond the scope of this specification but
the location is typically provided in the service documentation. The
endpoint URI MAY include a query component as defined by [RFC3986]
section 3, which MUST be retained when adding additional query
parameters. The endpoint URI MUST NOT include a fragment component.
Since requests to the authorization endpoint result in user
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
authentication and the transmission of clear-text credentials (in the
HTTP response), the authorization server MUST require the use of a
transport-layer security mechanism when sending requests to the
authorization endpoint. The authorization server MUST support TLS
1.2 as defined in [RFC5246], and MAY support additional transport-
layer mechanisms meeting its security requirements.
The authorization server MUST support the use of the HTTP "GET"
method [RFC2616] for the authorization endpoint, and MAY support the
use of the "POST" method as well.
Parameters sent without a value MUST be treated as if they were
omitted from the request. The authorization server SHOULD ignore
unrecognized request parameters. Request and response parameters
MUST NOT be included more than once.
3.1.1. Response Type
The authorization endpoint is used by the authorization code grant
type and implicit grant type flows. The client informs the
authorization server of the desired grant type using the following
parameter:
response_type
REQUIRED. The value MUST be one of "code" for requesting an
authorization code as described by Section 4.1.1, "token" for
requesting an access token (implicit grant) as described by
Section 4.2.1, or a registered extension value as described by
Section 8.4. If the response type contains one or more space
characters (%x20), it is interpreted as a space-delimited list
of values, where the order of values does not matter (e.g. "a
b" is the same as "b a").
If an authorization request is missing the "response_type" parameter,
the authorization server SHOULD return an error response as described
in Section 4.1.2.1.
3.1.2. Redirection Endpoint
After completing its interaction with the resource owner, the
authorization server directs the resource owner's user-agent back to
the client. The authorization server redirects the user-agent to the
client's redirection endpoint previously established with the
authorization server during the client registration process or when
initiating the authorization request.
The redirection endpoint URI MUST be an absolute URI as defined by
[RFC3986] section 4.3, MAY include a query component which MUST be
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
retained by the authorization server when adding additional query
parameters, and MUST NOT include a fragment component.
3.1.2.1. Endpoint Confidentiality
If a redirection request will result in the transmission of an
authorization code or access token over an open network (between the
resource owner's user-agent and the client), the client SHOULD
require the use of a transport-layer security mechanism.
Lack of transport-layer security can have a severe impact on the
security of the client and the protected resources it is authorized
to access. The use of transport-layer security is particularly
critical when the authorization process is used as a form of
delegated end-user authentication by the client (e.g. third-party
sign-in service).
3.1.2.2. Registration Requirements
The authorization server MUST require public clients to register
their redirection URI, MUST require all clients to register their
redirection URI prior to utilizing the implicit grant type, and
SHOULD require all clients to register their redirection URI prior to
utilizing the authorization code grant type.
The authorization server SHOULD require the client to provide the
complete redirection URI (the client MAY use the "state" request
parameter to achieve per-request customization). The authorization
server MAY allow the client to register multiple redirection URIs.
If requiring the registration of the complete redirection URI is not
possible, the authorization server SHOULD require the registration of
the URI scheme, authority, and path.
3.1.2.3. Dynamic Configuration
If multiple redirection URIs have been registered, if only part of
the redirection URI has been registered, or if no redirection URI has
been registered, the client MUST include a redirection URI with the
authorization request using the "redirect_uri" request parameter.
When a redirection URI is included in an authorization request, the
authorization server MUST compare and match the value received
against at least one of the registered redirection URIs (or URI
components) as defined in [RFC3986] section 6, if any redirection
URIs were registered.
If the authorization server allows the client to dynamically change
the query component of the redirection URI, the client MUST ensure
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
that manipulation of the query component by an attacker cannot lead
to an abuse of the redirection endpoint as an open redirector.
3.1.2.4. Invalid Endpoint
If an authorization request fails validation due to a missing,
invalid, or mismatching redirection URI, the authorization server
SHOULD inform the resource owner of the error, and MUST NOT
automatically redirect the user-agent to the invalid redirection URI.
The authorization server SHOULD NOT redirect the user-agent to
unregistered or untrusted URIs to prevent the authorization endpoint
from being used as an open redirector.
3.1.2.5. Endpoint Content
The redirection request to the client's endpoint typically results in
an HTML document response, processed by the user-agent. If the HTML
response is served directly as the result of the redirection request,
any script included in the HTML document will execute with full
access to the redirection URI and the credentials it contains.
The client SHOULD NOT include any third-party scripts in the
redirection endpoint response. Instead, it should extract the
credentials from the URI and redirect the user-agent again to another
endpoint without the credentials in the URI.
The client MUST NOT include any untrusted third-party scripts in the
redirection endpoint response (e.g. third-party analytics, social
plug-ins, ad networks) without first ensuring that its own scripts
used to extract and remove the credentials from the URI will execute
first.
3.2. Token Endpoint
The token endpoint is used by the client to obtain an access token by
presenting its authorization grant or refresh token. The token
endpoint is used with every authorization grant except for the
implicit grant type (since an access token is issued directly).
The means through which the client obtains the location of the token
endpoint are beyond the scope of this specification but is typically
provided in the service documentation. The endpoint URI MAY include
a query component, which MUST be retained when adding additional
query parameters.
Since requests to the token endpoint result in the transmission of
clear-text credentials (in the HTTP request and response), the
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
authorization server MUST require the use of a transport-layer
security mechanism when sending requests to the token endpoint. The
authorization server MUST support TLS 1.2 as defined in [RFC5246],
and MAY support additional transport-layer mechanisms meeting its
security requirements.
The client MUST use the HTTP "POST" method when making access token
requests.
Parameters sent without a value MUST be treated as if they were
omitted from the request. The authorization server SHOULD ignore
unrecognized request parameters. Request and response parameters
MUST NOT be included more than once.
3.2.1. Client Authentication
Private clients, clients issued client credentials, or clients
assigned other authentication requirements, MUST authenticate with
the authorization server as described in Section 2.4 when making
requests to the token endpoint. Client authentication is used for:
o Enforcing the binding of refresh tokens and authorization codes to
the client they are issued. Client authentication is critical
when an authorization code is transmitted to the redirection
endpoint over an insecure channel, or when the redirection URI has
not been registered in full.
o Recovery from a compromised client by disabling the client or
changing its credentials, by preventing an attacker from abusing
stolen refresh tokens. Changing a single set of client
credentials is significantly faster than revoking an entire set of
refresh tokens.
o Implementing authentication management best practices which
require periodic credentials rotation. Rotation of an entire set
of refresh tokens can be challenging, while rotation of a single
set of client credentials is significantly easier.
The security ramifications of allowing unauthenticated access by
public clients to the token endpoint MUST be considered, as well as
the issuance of refresh tokens to public clients, their scope, and
lifetime.
4. Obtaining Authorization
To request an access token, the client obtains authorization from the
resource owner. The authorization is expressed in the form of an
authorization grant which the client uses to request the access
token. OAuth defines four grant types: authorization code, implicit,
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
resource owner password credentials, and client credentials. It also
provides an extension mechanism for defining additional grant types.
4.1. Authorization Code
The authorization code grant type is used to obtain both access
tokens and refresh tokens and is optimized for private clients. As a
redirection-based flow, the client must be capable of interacting
with the resource owner's user-agent (typically a web browser) and
capable of receiving incoming requests (via redirection) from the
authorization server.
+----------+
| resource |
| owner |
| |
+----------+
^
|
(B)
+----|-----+ Client Identifier +---------------+
| -+----(A)-- & Redirection URI ---->| |
| User- | | Authorization |
| Agent -+----(B)-- User authenticates --->| Server |
| | | |
| -+----(C)-- Authorization Code ---<| |
+-|----|---+ +---------------+
| | ^ v
(A) (C) | |
| | | |
^ v | |
+---------+ | |
| |>---(D)-- Authorization Code ---------' |
| Client | & Redirection URI |
| | |
| |<---(E)----- Access Token -------------------'
+---------+ (w/ Optional Refresh Token)
Figure 3: Authorization Code Flow
The flow illustrated in Figure 3 includes the following steps:
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
(A) The client initiates the flow by directing the resource owner's
user-agent to the authorization endpoint. The client includes
its client identifier, requested scope, local state, and a
redirection URI to which the authorization server will send the
user-agent back once access is granted (or denied).
(B) The authorization server authenticates the resource owner (via
the user-agent) and establishes whether the resource owner
grants or denies the client's access request.
(C) Assuming the resource owner grants access, the authorization
server redirects the user-agent back to the client using the
redirection URI provided earlier. The redirection URI includes
an authorization code and any local state provided by the client
earlier.
(D) The client requests an access token from the authorization
server's token endpoint by including the authorization code
received in the previous step. When making the request, the
client authenticates with the authorization server. The client
includes the redirection URI used to obtain the authorization
code for verification.
(E) The authorization server authenticates the client, validates the
authorization code, and ensures the redirection URI received
matches the URI used to redirect the client in step (C). If
valid, responds back with an access token.
4.1.1. Authorization Request
The client constructs the request URI by adding the following
parameters to the query component of the authorization endpoint URI
using the "application/x-www-form-urlencoded" format as defined by
[W3C.REC-html401-19991224]:
response_type
REQUIRED. Value MUST be set to "code".
client_id
REQUIRED. The client identifier as described in Section 2.3.
redirect_uri
OPTIONAL, as described in Section 3.1.2.
scope
OPTIONAL. The scope of the access request expressed as a list
of space-delimited, case sensitive strings. The value is
defined by the authorization server. If the value contains
multiple space-delimited strings, their order does not matter,
and each string adds an additional access range to the
requested scope.
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
state
OPTIONAL. An opaque value used by the client to maintain state
between the request and callback. The authorization server
includes this value when redirecting the user-agent back to the
client.
The client directs the resource owner to the constructed URI using an
HTTP redirection response, or by other means available to it via the
user-agent.
For example, the client directs the user-agent to make the following
HTTP request using transport-layer security (extra line breaks are
for display purposes only):
GET /authorize?response_type=code&client_id=s6BhdRkqt3&state=xyz
&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fclient%2Eexample%2Ecom%2Fcb HTTP/1.1
Host: server.example.com
The authorization server validates the request to ensure all required
parameters are present and valid. If the request is valid, the
authorization server authenticates the resource owner and obtains an
authorization decision (by asking the resource owner or by
establishing approval via other means).
When a decision is established, the authorization server directs the
user-agent to the provided client redirection URI using an HTTP
redirection response, or by other means available to it via the user-
agent.
4.1.2. Authorization Response
If the resource owner grants the access request, the authorization
server issues an authorization code and delivers it to the client by
adding the following parameters to the query component of the
redirection URI using the "application/x-www-form-urlencoded" format:
code
REQUIRED. The authorization code generated by the
authorization server. The authorization code MUST expire
shortly after it is issued to mitigate the risk of leaks. A
maximum authorization code lifetime of 10 minutes is
RECOMMENDED. The client MUST NOT reuse the authorization code.
If an authorization code is used more than once, the
authorization server SHOULD attempt to revoke all tokens
previously issued based on that authorization code. The
authorization code is bound to the client identifier and
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
redirection URI.
state
REQUIRED if the "state" parameter was present in the client
authorization request. Set to the exact value received from
the client.
For example, the authorization server redirects the user-agent by
sending the following HTTP response:
HTTP/1.1 302 Found
Location: https://client.example.com/cb?code=SplxlOBeZQQYbYS6WxSbIA
&state=xyz
The client SHOULD ignore unrecognized response parameters. The
authorization code string size is left undefined by this
specification. The client should avoid making assumptions about code
value sizes. The authorization server should document the size of
any value it issues.
4.1.2.1. Error Response
If the request fails due to a missing, invalid, or mismatching
redirection URI, or if the client identifier provided is invalid, the
authorization server SHOULD inform the resource owner of the error,
and MUST NOT automatically redirect the user-agent to the invalid
redirection URI.
If the resource owner denies the access request or if the request
fails for reasons other than a missing or invalid redirection URI,
the authorization server informs the client by adding the following
parameters to the query component of the redirection URI using the
"application/x-www-form-urlencoded" format:
error
REQUIRED. A single error code from the following:
invalid_request
The request is missing a required parameter, includes an
unsupported parameter or parameter value, or is otherwise
malformed.
unauthorized_client
The client is not authorized to request an authorization
code using this method.
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
access_denied
The resource owner or authorization server denied the
request.
unsupported_response_type
The authorization server does not support obtaining an
authorization code using this method.
invalid_scope
The requested scope is invalid, unknown, or malformed.
server_error
The authorization server encountered an unexpected
condition which prevented it from fulfilling the request.
temporarily_unavailable
The authorization server is currently unable to handle
the request due to a temporary overloading or maintenance
of the server.
error_description
OPTIONAL. A human-readable UTF-8 encoded text providing
additional information, used to assist the client developer in
understanding the error that occurred.
error_uri
OPTIONAL. A URI identifying a human-readable web page with
information about the error, used to provide the client
developer with additional information about the error.
state
REQUIRED if a valid "state" parameter was present in the client
authorization request. Set to the exact value received from
the client.
For example, the authorization server redirects the user-agent by
sending the following HTTP response:
HTTP/1.1 302 Found
Location: https://client.example.com/cb?error=access_denied&state=xyz
4.1.3. Access Token Request
The client makes a request to the token endpoint by adding the
following parameters using the "application/x-www-form-urlencoded"
format in the HTTP request entity-body:
grant_type
REQUIRED. Value MUST be set to "authorization_code".
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
code
REQUIRED. The authorization code received from the
authorization server.
redirect_uri
REQUIRED, if the "redirect_uri" parameter was included in the
authorization request described in Section 4.1.1, and their
values MUST be identical.
If the client type is private or was issued client credentials (or
assigned other authentication requirements), the client MUST
authenticate with the authorization server as described in
Section 3.2.1.
For example, the client makes the following HTTP using transport-
layer security (extra line breaks are for display purposes only):
POST /token HTTP/1.1
Host: server.example.com
Authorization: Basic czZCaGRSa3F0MzpnWDFmQmF0M2JW
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded;charset=UTF-8
grant_type=authorization_code&code=SplxlOBeZQQYbYS6WxSbIA
&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fclient%2Eexample%2Ecom%2Fcb
The authorization server MUST:
o require client authentication for private clients or for any
client issued client credentials (or with other authentication
requirements),
o authenticate the client if client authentication is included and
ensure the authorization code was issued to the authenticated
client,
o verify that the authorization code is valid, and
o ensure that the "redirect_uri" parameter is present if the
"redirect_uri" parameter was included in the initial authorization
request described in Section 4.1.1, and that their values are
identical.
4.1.4. Access Token Response
If the access token request is valid and authorized, the
authorization server issues an access token and optional refresh
token as described in Section 5.1. If the request client
authentication failed or is invalid, the authorization server returns
an error response as described in Section 5.2.
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
An example successful response:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/json;charset=UTF-8
Cache-Control: no-store
Pragma: no-cache
{
"access_token":"2YotnFZFEjr1zCsicMWpAA",
"token_type":"example",
"expires_in":3600,
"refresh_token":"tGzv3JOkF0XG5Qx2TlKWIA",
"example_parameter":"example_value"
}
4.2. Implicit Grant
The implicit grant type is used to obtain access tokens (it does not
support the issuance of refresh tokens) and is optimized for public
clients known to operate a particular redirection URI. These clients
are typically implemented in a browser using a scripting language
such as JavaScript.
As a redirection-based flow, the client must be capable of
interacting with the resource owner's user-agent (typically a web
browser) and capable of receiving incoming requests (via redirection)
from the authorization server.
Unlike the authorization code grant type in which the client makes
separate requests for authorization and access token, the client
receives the access token as the result of the authorization request.
The implicit grant type does not include client authentication, and
relies on the presence of the resource owner and the registration of
the redirection URI. Because the access token is encoded into the
redirection URI, it may be exposed to the resource owner and other
applications residing on its device.
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
+----------+
| Resource |
| Owner |
| |
+----------+
^
|
(B)
+----|-----+ Client Identifier +---------------+
| -+----(A)-- & Redirection URI --->| |
| User- | | Authorization |
| Agent -|----(B)-- User authenticates -->| Server |
| | | |
| |<---(C)--- Redirection URI ----<| |
| | with Access Token +---------------+
| | in Fragment
| | +---------------+
| |----(D)--- Redirection URI ---->| Web-Hosted |
| | without Fragment | Client |
| | | Resource |
| (F) |<---(E)------- Script ---------<| |
| | +---------------+
+-|--------+
| |
(A) (G) Access Token
| |
^ v
+---------+
| |
| Client |
| |
+---------+
Figure 4: Implicit Grant Flow
The flow illustrated in Figure 4 includes the following steps:
(A) The client initiates the flow by directing the resource owner's
user-agent to the authorization endpoint. The client includes
its client identifier, requested scope, local state, and a
redirection URI to which the authorization server will send the
user-agent back once access is granted (or denied).
(B) The authorization server authenticates the resource owner (via
the user-agent) and establishes whether the resource owner
grants or denies the client's access request.
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
(C) Assuming the resource owner grants access, the authorization
server redirects the user-agent back to the client using the
redirection URI provided earlier. The redirection URI includes
the access token in the URI fragment.
(D) The user-agent follows the redirection instructions by making a
request to the web-hosted client resource (which does not
include the fragment). The user-agent retains the fragment
information locally.
(E) The web-hosted client resource returns a web page (typically an
HTML document with an embedded script) capable of accessing the
full redirection URI including the fragment retained by the
user-agent, and extracting the access token (and other
parameters) contained in the fragment.
(F) The user-agent executes the script provided by the web-hosted
client resource locally, which extracts the access token and
passes it to the client.
4.2.1. Authorization Request
The client constructs the request URI by adding the following
parameters to the query component of the authorization endpoint URI
using the "application/x-www-form-urlencoded" format:
response_type
REQUIRED. Value MUST be set to "token".
client_id
REQUIRED. The client identifier as described in Section 2.3.
redirect_uri
OPTIONAL, as described in Section 3.1.2.
scope
OPTIONAL. The scope of the access request expressed as a list
of space-delimited, case sensitive strings. The value is
defined by the authorization server. If the value contains
multiple space-delimited strings, their order does not matter,
and each string adds an additional access range to the
requested scope.
state
OPTIONAL. An opaque value used by the client to maintain state
between the request and callback. The authorization server
includes this value when redirecting the user-agent back to the
client.
The client directs the resource owner to the constructed URI using an
HTTP redirection response, or by other means available to it via the
user-agent.
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
For example, the client directs the user-agent to make the following
HTTP request using transport-layer security (extra line breaks are
for display purposes only):
GET /authorize?response_type=token&client_id=s6BhdRkqt3&state=xyz
&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fclient%2Eexample%2Ecom%2Fcb HTTP/1.1
Host: server.example.com
The authorization server validates the request to ensure all required
parameters are present and valid. The authorization server MUST
verify that the redirection URI to which it will redirect the access
token matches a redirection URI registered by the client as described
in Section 3.1.2.
If the request is valid, the authorization server authenticates the
resource owner and obtains an authorization decision (by asking the
resource owner or by establishing approval via other means).
When a decision is established, the authorization server directs the
user-agent to the provided client redirection URI using an HTTP
redirection response, or by other means available to it via the user-
agent.
4.2.2. Access Token Response
If the resource owner grants the access request, the authorization
server issues an access token and delivers it to the client by adding
the following parameters to the fragment component of the redirection
URI using the "application/x-www-form-urlencoded" format:
access_token
REQUIRED. The access token issued by the authorization server.
token_type
REQUIRED. The type of the token issued as described in
Section 7.1. Value is case insensitive.
expires_in
OPTIONAL. The lifetime in seconds of the access token. For
example, the value "3600" denotes that the access token will
expire in one hour from the time the response was generated.
scope
OPTIONAL. The scope of the access token expressed as a list of
space-delimited, case sensitive strings. The value is defined
by the authorization server. If the value contains multiple
space-delimited strings, their order does not matter, and each
string adds an additional access range to the requested scope.
The authorization server SHOULD include the parameter if the
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
access token scope is different from the one requested by the
client.
state
REQUIRED if the "state" parameter was present in the client
authorization request. Set to the exact value received from
the client.
For example, the authorization server redirects the user-agent by
sending the following HTTP response (URI extra line breaks are for
display purposes only):
HTTP/1.1 302 Found
Location: http://example.com/rd#access_token=2YotnFZFEjr1zCsicMWpAA
&state=xyz&token_type=example&expires_in=3600
Developers should note that some HTTP client implementations do not
support the inclusion of a fragment component in the HTTP "Location"
response header field. Such client will require using other methods
for redirecting the client than a 3xx redirection response. For
example, returning an HTML page which includes a 'continue' button
with an action linked to the redirection URI.
The client SHOULD ignore unrecognized response parameters. The
access token string size is left undefined by this specification.
The client should avoid making assumptions about value sizes. The
authorization server should document the size of any value it issues.
4.2.2.1. Error Response
If the request fails due to a missing, invalid, or mismatching
redirection URI, or if the client identifier provided is invalid, the
authorization server SHOULD inform the resource owner of the error,
and MUST NOT automatically redirect the user-agent to the invalid
redirection URI.
If the resource owner denies the access request or if the request
fails for reasons other than a missing or invalid redirection URI,
the authorization server informs the client by adding the following
parameters to the fragment component of the redirection URI using the
"application/x-www-form-urlencoded" format:
error
REQUIRED. A single error code from the following:
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
invalid_request
The request is missing a required parameter, includes an
unsupported parameter or parameter value, or is otherwise
malformed.
unauthorized_client
The client is not authorized to request an access token
using this method.
access_denied
The resource owner or authorization server denied the
request.
unsupported_response_type
The authorization server does not support obtaining an
access token using this method.
invalid_scope
The requested scope is invalid, unknown, or malformed.
server_error
The authorization server encountered an unexpected
condition which prevented it from fulfilling the request.
temporarily_unavailable
The authorization server is currently unable to handle
the request due to a temporary overloading or maintenance
of the server.
error_description
OPTIONAL. A human-readable UTF-8 encoded text providing
additional information, used to assist the client developer in
understanding the error that occurred.
error_uri
OPTIONAL. A URI identifying a human-readable web page with
information about the error, used to provide the client
developer with additional information about the error.
state
REQUIRED if a valid "state" parameter was present in the client
authorization request. Set to the exact value received from
the client.
For example, the authorization server redirects the user-agent by
sending the following HTTP response:
HTTP/1.1 302 Found
Location: https://client.example.com/cb#error=access_denied&state=xyz
4.3. Resource Owner Password Credentials
The resource owner password credentials grant type is suitable in
cases where the resource owner has a trust relationship with the
client, such as its device operating system or a highly privileged
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
application. The authorization server should take special care when
enabling the grant type, and only when other flows are not viable.
The grant type is suitable for clients capable of obtaining the
resource owner credentials (username and password, typically using an
interactive form). It is also used to migrate existing clients using
direct authentication schemes such as HTTP Basic or Digest
authentication to OAuth by converting the stored credentials to an
access token.
+----------+
| Resource |
| Owner |
| |
+----------+
v
| Resource Owner
(A) Password Credentials
|
v
+---------+ +---------------+
| |>--(B)---- Resource Owner ------->| |
| | Password Credentials | Authorization |
| Client | | Server |
| |<--(C)---- Access Token ---------<| |
| | (w/ Optional Refresh Token) | |
+---------+ +---------------+
Figure 5: Resource Owner Password Credentials Flow
The flow illustrated in Figure 5 includes the following steps:
(A) The resource owner provides the client with its username and
password.
(B) The client requests an access token from the authorization
server's token endpoint by including the credentials received
from the resource owner. When making the request, the client
authenticates with the authorization server.
(C) The authorization server authenticates the client and validates
the resource owner credentials, and if valid issues an access
token.
4.3.1. Authorization Request and Response
The method through which the client obtains the resource owner
credentials is beyond the scope of this specification. The client
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
MUST discard the credentials once an access token has been obtained.
4.3.2. Access Token Request
The client makes a request to the token endpoint by adding the
following parameters using the "application/x-www-form-urlencoded"
format in the HTTP request entity-body:
grant_type
REQUIRED. Value MUST be set to "password".
username
REQUIRED. The resource owner username, encoded as UTF-8.
password
REQUIRED. The resource owner password, encoded as UTF-8.
scope
OPTIONAL. The scope of the access request expressed as a list
of space-delimited, case sensitive strings. The value is
defined by the authorization server. If the value contains
multiple space-delimited strings, their order does not matter,
and each string adds an additional access range to the
requested scope.
If the client type is private or was issued client credentials (or
assigned other authentication requirements), the client MUST
authenticate with the authorization server as described in
Section 3.2.1.
For example, the client makes the following HTTP request using
transport-layer security (extra line breaks are for display purposes
only):
POST /token HTTP/1.1
Host: server.example.com
Authorization: Basic czZCaGRSa3F0MzpnWDFmQmF0M2JW
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded;charset=UTF-8
grant_type=password&username=johndoe&password=A3ddj3w
The authorization server MUST:
o require client authentication for private clients or for any
client issued client credentials (or with other authentication
requirements),
o authenticate the client if client authentication is included, and
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
o validate the resource owner password credentials.
Since this access token request utilizes the resource owner's
password, the authorization server MUST protect the endpoint against
brute force attacks.
4.3.3. Access Token Response
If the access token request is valid and authorized, the
authorization server issues an access token and optional refresh
token as described in Section 5.1. If the request failed client
authentication or is invalid, the authorization server returns an
error response as described in Section 5.2.
An example successful response:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/json;charset=UTF-8
Cache-Control: no-store
Pragma: no-cache
{
"access_token":"2YotnFZFEjr1zCsicMWpAA",
"token_type":"example",
"expires_in":3600,
"refresh_token":"tGzv3JOkF0XG5Qx2TlKWIA",
"example_parameter":"example_value"
}
4.4. Client Credentials
The client can request an access token using only its client
credentials (or other supported means of authentication) when the
client is requesting access to the protected resources under its
control, or those of another resource owner which has been previously
arranged with the authorization server (the method of which is beyond
the scope of this specification).
The client credentials grant type MUST only be used by private
clients.
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
+---------+ +---------------+
| | | |
| |>--(A)- Client Authentication --->| Authorization |
| Client | | Server |
| |<--(B)---- Access Token ---------<| |
| | | |
+---------+ +---------------+
Figure 6: Client Credentials Flow
The flow illustrated in Figure 6 includes the following steps:
(A) The client authenticates with the authorization server and
requests an access token from the token endpoint.
(B) The authorization server authenticates the client, and if valid
issues an access token.
4.4.1. Authorization Request and Response
Since the client authentication is used as the authorization grant,
no additional authorization request is needed.
4.4.2. Access Token Request
The client makes a request to the token endpoint by adding the
following parameters using the "application/x-www-form-urlencoded"
format in the HTTP request entity-body:
grant_type
REQUIRED. Value MUST be set to "client_credentials".
scope
OPTIONAL. The scope of the access request expressed as a list
of space-delimited, case sensitive strings. The value is
defined by the authorization server. If the value contains
multiple space-delimited strings, their order does not matter,
and each string adds an additional access range to the
requested scope.
The client MUST authenticate with the authorization server as
described in Section 3.2.1.
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
For example, the client makes the following HTTP request using
transport-layer security (extra line breaks are for display purposes
only):
POST /token HTTP/1.1
Host: server.example.com
Authorization: Basic czZCaGRSa3F0MzpnWDFmQmF0M2JW
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded;charset=UTF-8
grant_type=client_credentials
The authorization server MUST authenticate the client.
4.4.3. Access Token Response
If the access token request is valid and authorized, the
authorization server issues an access token as described in
Section 5.1. A refresh token SHOULD NOT be included. If the request
failed client authentication or is invalid, the authorization server
returns an error response as described in Section 5.2.
An example successful response:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/json;charset=UTF-8
Cache-Control: no-store
Pragma: no-cache
{
"access_token":"2YotnFZFEjr1zCsicMWpAA",
"token_type":"example",
"expires_in":3600,
"example_parameter":"example_value"
}
4.5. Extensions
The client uses an extension grant type by specifying the grant type
using an absolute URI (defined by the authorization server) as the
value of the "grant_type" parameter of the token endpoint, and by
adding any additional parameters necessary.
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
For example, to request an access token using a SAML 2.0 assertion
grant type as defined by [I-D.ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer], the client
makes the following HTTP request using transport-layer security (line
breaks are for display purposes only):
POST /token HTTP/1.1
Host: server.example.com
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded;charset=UTF-8
grant_type=http%3A%2F%2Foauth.net%2Fgrant_type%2Fassertion%2F
saml%2F2.0%2Fbearer&assertion=PEFzc2VydGlvbiBJc3N1ZUluc3RhbnQ
[...omitted for brevity...]V0aG5TdGF0ZW1lbnQ-PC9Bc3NlcnRpb24-
If the access token request is valid and authorized, the
authorization server issues an access token and optional refresh
token as described in Section 5.1. If the request failed client
authentication or is invalid, the authorization server returns an
error response as described in Section 5.2.
5. Issuing an Access Token
If the access token request is valid and authorized, the
authorization server issues an access token and optional refresh
token as described in Section 5.1. If the request failed client
authentication or is invalid, the authorization server returns an
error response as described in Section 5.2.
5.1. Successful Response
The authorization server issues an access token and optional refresh
token, and constructs the response by adding the following parameters
to the entity body of the HTTP response with a 200 (OK) status code:
access_token
REQUIRED. The access token issued by the authorization server.
token_type
REQUIRED. The type of the token issued as described in
Section 7.1. Value is case insensitive.
expires_in
OPTIONAL. The lifetime in seconds of the access token. For
example, the value "3600" denotes that the access token will
expire in one hour from the time the response was generated.
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
refresh_token
OPTIONAL. The refresh token which can be used to obtain new
access tokens using the same authorization grant as described
in Section 6.
scope
OPTIONAL. The scope of the access token expressed as a list of
space-delimited, case sensitive strings. The value is defined
by the authorization server. If the value contains multiple
space-delimited strings, their order does not matter, and each
string adds an additional access range to the requested scope.
The authorization server SHOULD include the parameter if the
access token scope is different from the one requested by the
client.
The parameters are included in the entity body of the HTTP response
using the "application/json" media type as defined by [RFC4627]. The
parameters are serialized into a JSON structure by adding each
parameter at the highest structure level. Parameter names and string
values are included as JSON strings. Numerical values are included
as JSON numbers.
The authorization server MUST include the HTTP "Cache-Control"
response header field [RFC2616] with a value of "no-store" in any
response containing tokens, credentials, or other sensitive
information, as well as the "Pragma" response header field [RFC2616]
with a value of "no-cache".
For example:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/json;charset=UTF-8
Cache-Control: no-store
Pragma: no-cache
{
"access_token":"2YotnFZFEjr1zCsicMWpAA",
"token_type":"example",
"expires_in":3600,
"refresh_token":"tGzv3JOkF0XG5Qx2TlKWIA",
"example_parameter":"example_value"
}
The client SHOULD ignore unrecognized response parameters. The sizes
of tokens and other values received from the authorization server are
left undefined. The client should avoid making assumptions about
value sizes. The authorization server should document the size of
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
any value it issues.
5.2. Error Response
The authorization server responds with an HTTP 400 (Bad Request)
status code and includes the following parameters with the response:
error
REQUIRED. A single error code from the following:
invalid_request
The request is missing a required parameter, includes an
unsupported parameter or parameter value, repeats a
parameter, includes multiple credentials, utilizes more
than one mechanism for authenticating the client, or is
otherwise malformed.
invalid_client
Client authentication failed (e.g. unknown client, no
client authentication included, multiple client
authentications included, or unsupported authentication
method). The authorization server MAY return an HTTP 401
(Unauthorized) status code to indicate which HTTP
authentication schemes are supported. If the client
attempted to authenticate via the "Authorization" request
header field, the authorization server MUST respond with
an HTTP 401 (Unauthorized) status code, and include the
"WWW-Authenticate" response header field matching the
authentication scheme used by the client.
invalid_grant
The provided authorization grant is invalid, expired,
revoked, does not match the redirection URI used in the
authorization request, or was issued to another client.
unauthorized_client
The authenticated client is not authorized to use this
authorization grant type.
unsupported_grant_type
The authorization grant type is not supported by the
authorization server.
invalid_scope
The requested scope is invalid, unknown, malformed, or
exceeds the scope granted by the resource owner.
error_description
OPTIONAL. A human-readable UTF-8 encoded text providing
additional information, used to assist the client developer in
understanding the error that occurred.
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
error_uri
OPTIONAL. A URI identifying a human-readable web page with
information about the error, used to provide the client
developer with additional information about the error.
The parameters are included in the entity body of the HTTP response
using the "application/json" media type as defined by [RFC4627]. The
parameters are serialized into a JSON structure by adding each
parameter at the highest structure level. Parameter names and string
values are included as JSON strings. Numerical values are included
as JSON numbers.
For example:
HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
Content-Type: application/json;charset=UTF-8
Cache-Control: no-store
Pragma: no-cache
{
"error":"invalid_request"
}
6. Refreshing an Access Token
If the authorization server issued a refresh token to the client, the
client makes a refresh request to the token endpoint by adding the
following parameters using the "application/x-www-form-urlencoded"
format in the HTTP request entity-body:
grant_type
REQUIRED. Value MUST be set to "refresh_token".
refresh_token
REQUIRED. The refresh token issued to the client.
scope
OPTIONAL. The scope of the access request expressed as a list
of space-delimited, case sensitive strings. The value is
defined by the authorization server. If the value contains
multiple space-delimited strings, their order does not matter,
and each string adds an additional access range to the
requested scope. The requested scope MUST be equal or lesser
than the scope originally granted by the resource owner, and if
omitted is treated as equal to the scope originally granted by
the resource owner.
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
Because refresh tokens are typically long-lasting credentials used to
request additional access tokens, the refresh token is bound to the
client it was issued. If the client type is private or was issued
client credentials (or assigned other authentication requirements),
the client MUST authenticate with the authorization server as
described in Section 3.2.1.
For example, the client makes the following HTTP request using
transport-layer security (extra line breaks are for display purposes
only):
POST /token HTTP/1.1
Host: server.example.com
Authorization: Basic czZCaGRSa3F0MzpnWDFmQmF0M2JW
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded;charset=UTF-8
grant_type=refresh_token&refresh_token=tGzv3JOkF0XG5Qx2TlKWIA
The authorization server MUST:
o require client authentication for private clients or for any
client issued client credentials (or with other authentication
requirements),
o authenticate the client if client authentication is included and
ensure the refresh token was issued to the authenticated client,
o validate the refresh token, and
If valid and authorized, the authorization server issues an access
token as described in Section 5.1. If the request failed
verification or is invalid, the authorization server returns an error
response as described in Section 5.2.
The authorization server MAY issue a new refresh token, in which case
the client MUST discard the old refresh token and replace it with the
new refresh token. The authorization server MAY revoke the old
refresh token after issuing a new refresh token to the client. If a
new refresh token is issued, its scope MUST be identical to that of
the refresh token included in the request.
7. Accessing Protected Resources
The client accesses protected resources by presenting the access
token to the resource server. The resource server MUST validate the
access token and ensure it has not expired and that its scope covers
the requested resource. The methods used by the resource server to
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
validate the access token (as well as any error responses) are beyond
the scope of this specification, but generally involve an interaction
or coordination between the resource server and the authorization
server.
The method in which the client utilized the access token to
authenticate with the resource server depends on the type of access
token issued by the authorization server. Typically, it involves
using the HTTP "Authorization" request header field [RFC2617] with an
authentication scheme defined by the access token type specification.
7.1. Access Token Types
The access token type provides the client with the information
required to successfully utilize the access token to make a protected
resource request (along with type-specific attributes). The client
MUST NOT use an access token if it does not understand or does not
trust the token type.
For example, the "bearer" token type defined in
[I-D.ietf-oauth-v2-bearer] is utilized by simply including the access
token string in the request:
GET /resource/1 HTTP/1.1
Host: example.com
Authorization: Bearer 7Fjfp0ZBr1KtDRbnfVdmIw
while the "mac" token type defined in [I-D.ietf-oauth-v2-http-mac] is
utilized by issuing a MAC key together with the access token which is
used to sign certain components of the HTTP requests:
GET /resource/1 HTTP/1.1
Host: example.com
Authorization: MAC id="h480djs93hd8",
nonce="274312:dj83hs9s",
mac="kDZvddkndxvhGRXZhvuDjEWhGeE="
The above examples are provided for illustration purposes only.
Developers are advised to consult the [I-D.ietf-oauth-v2-bearer] and
[I-D.ietf-oauth-v2-http-mac] specifications before use.
Each access token type definition specifies the additional attributes
(if any) sent to the client together with the "access_token" response
parameter. It also defines the HTTP authentication method used to
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
include the access token when making a protected resource request.
8. Extensibility
8.1. Defining Access Token Types
Access token types can be defined in one of two ways: registered in
the access token type registry (following the procedures in
Section 11.1), or use a unique absolute URI as its name.
Types utilizing a URI name SHOULD be limited to vendor-specific
implementations that are not commonly applicable, and are specific to
the implementation details of the resource server where they are
used.
All other types MUST be registered. Type names MUST conform to the
type-name ABNF. If the type definition includes a new HTTP
authentication scheme, the type name SHOULD be identical to the HTTP
authentication scheme name (as defined by [RFC2617]).
type-name = 1*name-char
name-char = "-" / "." / "_" / DIGIT / ALPHA
8.2. Defining New Endpoint Parameters
New request or response parameters for use with the authorization
endpoint or the token endpoint are defined and registered in the
parameters registry following the procedure in Section 11.2.
Parameter names MUST conform to the param-name ABNF and parameter
values syntax MUST be well-defined (e.g., using ABNF, or a reference
to the syntax of an existing parameter).
param-name = 1*name-char
name-char = "-" / "." / "_" / DIGIT / ALPHA
Unregistered vendor-specific parameter extensions that are not
commonly applicable, and are specific to the implementation details
of the authorization server where they are used SHOULD utilize a
vendor-specific prefix that is not likely to conflict with other
registered values (e.g. begin with 'companyname_').
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
8.3. Defining New Authorization Grant Types
New authorization grant types can be defined by assigning them a
unique absolute URI for use with the "grant_type" parameter. If the
extension grant type requires additional token endpoint parameters,
they MUST be registered in the OAuth parameters registry as described
by Section 11.2.
8.4. Defining New Authorization Endpoint Response Types
New response types for use with the authorization endpoint are
defined and registered in the authorization endpoint response type
registry following the procedure in Section 11.3. Response type
names MUST conform to the response-type ABNF.
response-type = response-name *( SP response-name )
response-name = 1*response-char
response-char = "_" / DIGIT / ALPHA
If a response type contains one of more space characters (%x20), it
is compared as a space-delimited list of values in which the order of
values does not matter. Only one order of values can be registered,
which covers all other arrangements of the same set of values.
For example, the response type "token code" is left undefined by this
specification. However, an extension can define and register the
"token code" response type. Once registered, the same combination
cannot be registered as "code token", but both values can be used to
denote the same response type.
8.5. Defining Additional Error Codes
In cases where protocol extensions (i.e. access token types,
extension parameters, or extension grant types) require additional
error codes to be used with the authorization code grant error
response (Section 4.1.2.1), the implicit grant error response
(Section 4.2.2.1), or the token error response (Section 5.2), such
error codes MAY be defined.
Extension error codes MUST be registered (following the procedures in
Section 11.4) if the extension they are used in conjunction with is a
registered access token type, a registered endpoint parameter, or an
extension grant type. Error codes used with unregistered extensions
MAY be registered.
Error codes MUST conform to the error-code ABNF, and SHOULD be
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
prefixed by an identifying name when possible. For example, an error
identifying an invalid value set to the extension parameter "example"
should be named "example_invalid".
error-code = ALPHA *error-char
error-char = "-" / "." / "_" / DIGIT / ALPHA
9. Native Applications
Native applications are clients installed and executed on the
resource owner's device (i.e. desktop application, native mobile
application). Native applications may require special consideration
related to security, platform capabilities, and overall end-user
experience.
The authorization endpoint requires interaction between the client
and the resource owner's user-agent. Native applications can invoke
an external user-agent or embed a user-agent within the application.
For example:
o External user-agent - the native application can capture the
response from the authorization server using a redirection URI
with an scheme registered with the operating system to invoke the
client as the handler, manual copy-and-paste of the credentials,
running a local web server, installing a user-agent extension, or
by providing a redirection URI identifying a server-hosted
resource under the client's control, which in turn makes the
response available to the native application.
o Embedded user-agent - the native application obtains the response
by directly communicating with the embedded user-agent by
monitoring state changes emitted during the resource load, or
accessing the user-agent's cookies storage.
When choosing between an external or embedded user-agent, developers
should consider:
o External user-agents may improve completion rate as the resource
owner may already have an active session with the authorization
server removing the need to re-authenticate. It provides a
familiar end-user experience and functionality. The resource
owner may also rely on user-agent features or extensions to assist
with authentication (e.g. password manager, 2-factor device
reader).
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
o Embedded user-agents may offer an improved usability, as they
remove the need to switch context and open new windows.
o Embedded user-agents pose a security challenge because resource
owners are authenticating in an unidentified window without access
to the visual protections found in most external user-agents.
Embedded user-agents educate end-user to trust unidentified
requests for authentication (making phishing attacks easier to
execute).
When choosing between the implicit grant type and the authorization
code grant type, the following should be considered:
o Native applications that use the authorization code grant type
SHOULD do so without using client credentials, due to the native
application's inability to keep credentials confidential.
o When using the implicit grant type flow a refresh token is not
returned.
10. Security Considerations
As a flexible and extensible framework, OAuth's security
considerations depend on many factors. The following sections
provide implementers with security guidelines focused on the three
client profiles described in Section 2.1: web application, user-
agent-based application, and native application.
A comprehensive OAuth security model and analysis, as well as
background for the protocol design is provided by
[I-D.ietf-oauth-v2-threatmodel].
10.1. Client Authentication
The authorization server establishes client credentials with web
application clients for the purpose of client authentication. The
authorization server is encouraged to consider stronger client
authentication means than a client password. Web application clients
MUST ensure confidentiality of client passwords and other client
credentials.
The authorization server MUST NOT issue client passwords or other
client credentials to native application or user-agent-based
application clients for the purpose of client authentication. The
authorization server MAY issue a client password or other credentials
for a specific installation of a native application client on a
specific device.
When client authentication is not possible, the authorization server
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
SHOULD employ other means to validate the client's identity. For
example, by requiring the registration of the client redirection URI
or enlisting the resource owner to confirm identity. The
authorization server must consider the security implications of
interacting with unauthenticated clients and take measures to limit
the potential exposure of other credentials (e.g. refresh tokens)
issued to such clients.
10.2. Client Impersonation
A malicious client can impersonate another client and obtain access
to protected resources, if the impersonated client fails to, or is
unable to, keep is client credentials confidential.
The authorization server MUST authenticate the client whenever
possible. If the authorization server cannot authenticate the client
due to the client nature, the authorization server MUST require the
registration of any redirection URI used for receiving authorization,
and SHOULD utilize other means to protect resource owners from such
malicious clients. For example, engage the resource owner to assist
in identifying the client and its origin.
The authorization server SHOULD enforce explicit resource owner
authentication and provide the resource owner with information about
the client and the requested authorization scope and lifetime. It is
up to the resource owner to review the information in the context of
the current client, and authorize the request.
The authorization server SHOULD NOT process repeated authorization
requests automatically (without active resource owner interaction)
without authenticating the client or relying on other measures to
ensure the repeated request comes from the original client and not an
impersonator.
10.3. Access Tokens
Access token (as well as any access token type-specific attributes)
MUST be kept confidential in transit and storage, and only shared
among the authorization server, the resource servers the access token
is valid for, and the client to whom the access token is issued.
When using the implicit grant type, the access token is transmitted
in the URI fragment, which can expose it to unauthorized parties.
The authorization server MUST ensure that access tokens cannot be
generated, modified, or guessed to produce valid access tokens.
The client SHOULD request access tokens with the minimal scope and
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
lifetime necessary. The authorization server SHOULD take the client
identity into account when choosing how to honor the requested scope
and lifetime, and MAY issue an access token with a less rights than
requested.
10.4. Refresh Tokens
Authorization servers MAY issue refresh tokens to web application
clients and native application clients.
Refresh tokens MUST be kept confidential in transit and storage, and
shared only among the authorization server and the client to whom the
refresh tokens were issued. The authorization server MUST maintain
the binding between a refresh token and the client to whom it was
issued.
The authorization server MUST verify the binding between the refresh
token and client identity whenever the client identity can be
authenticated. When client authentication is not possible, the
authorization server SHOULD deploy other means to detect refresh
token abuse.
For example, the authorization server could employ refresh tokens
rotation in which a new refresh token is issued with every access
token refresh response. The previous refresh token is invalidated
but retained by the authorization server. If a refresh token is
compromised and subsequently used by both the attacker and the
legitimate client, one of them will present an invalidated refresh
token which will inform the authorization server of the breach.
The authorization server MUST ensure that refresh tokens cannot be
generated, modified, or guessed to produce valid refresh tokens.
10.5. Authorization Codes
The transmission of authorization codes SHOULD be made over a secure
channel, and the client SHOULD implement TLS for use with its
redirection URI if the URI identifies a network resource. Effort
should be made to keep authorization codes confidential. Since
authorization codes are transmitted via user-agent redirections, they
could potentially be disclosed through user-agent history and HTTP
referrer headers.
Authorization codes operate as plaintext bearer credentials, used to
verify that the resource owner who granted authorization at the
authorization server, is the same resource owner returning to the
client to complete the process. Therefore, if the client relies on
the authorization code for its own resource owner authentication, the
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
client redirection endpoint MUST require TLS.
Authorization codes MUST be short lived and single use. If the
authorization server observes multiple attempts to exchange an
authorization code for an access token, the authorization server
SHOULD attempt to revoke all access tokens already granted based on
the compromised authorization code.
If the client can be authenticated, the authorization servers MUST
authenticate the client and ensure that the authorization code was
issued to the same client.
10.6. Authorization Code Leakage
An attacker can leverage the authorization code grant type by
tricking a resource owner to authorize access to a legitimate client,
but using a client account under the control of the attacker. The
only difference between a valid request and the attack request is in
how the victim reached the authorization server to grant access.
Once at the authorization server, the victim is prompted with a
normal, valid request on behalf of a legitimate and familiar client.
The attacker then uses the victim's authorization to gain access to
the information authorized by the victim (via the client).
In order to prevent such an attack, authorization servers MUST ensure
that the redirection URI used to obtain the authorization code, is
the same as the redirection URI provided when exchanging the
authorization code for an access token. The authorization server
SHOULD require the client to register their redirection URI and if
provided, MUST validate the redirection URI received in the
authorization request against the registered value.
10.7. Resource Owner Password Credentials
The resource owner password credentials grant type is often used for
legacy or migration reasons. It reduces the overall risk of storing
username and password by the client, but does not eliminate the need
to expose highly privileged credentials to the client.
This grant type carries a higher risk than other grant types because
it maintains the password anti-pattern this protocol seeks to avoid.
The client could abuse the password or the password could
unintentionally be disclosed to an attacker (e.g. via log files or
other records kept by the client).
Additionally, because the resource owner does not have control over
the authorization process (the resource owner involvement ends when
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
it hands over its credentials to the client), the client can obtain
access tokens with a broader scope and longer lifetime than desired
by the resource owner. The authorization server SHOULD restrict the
scope and lifetime of access tokens issued via this grant type.
The authorization server and client SHOULD minimize use of this grant
type and utilize other grant types whenever possible.
10.8. Request Confidentiality
Access tokens, refresh tokens, resource owner passwords, and client
credentials MUST NOT be transmitted in the clear. Authorization
codes SHOULD NOT be transmitted in the clear.
10.9. Endpoints Authenticity
In order to prevent man-in-the-middle and phishing attacks, the
authorization server MUST implement and require TLS with server
authentication as defined by [RFC2818] for any request sent to the
authorization and token endpoints. The client MUST validate the
authorization server's TLS certificate in accordance with its
requirements for server identity authentication.
10.10. Credentials Guessing Attacks
The authorization server MUST prevent attackers from guessing access
tokens, authorization codes, refresh tokens, resource owner
passwords, and client credentials.
When generating tokens and other credentials not intended for
handling by end-users, the authorization server MUST use a reasonable
level of entropy in order to mitigate the risk of guessing attacks.
The authorization server MUST utilize other means to protect
credentials intended for end-user usage.
10.11. Phishing Attacks
Wide deployment of this and similar protocols may cause end-users to
become inured to the practice of being redirected to websites where
they are asked to enter their passwords. If end-users are not
careful to verify the authenticity of these websites before entering
their credentials, it will be possible for attackers to exploit this
practice to steal resource owners' passwords.
Service providers should attempt to educate end-users about the risks
phishing attacks pose, and should provide mechanisms that make it
easy for end-users to confirm the authenticity of their sites.
Client developers should consider the security implications of how
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
they interact with the user-agent (e.g., external, embedded), and the
ability of the end-user to verify the authenticity of the
authorization server.
To reduce the risk of phishing attacks, the authorization servers
MUST utilize TLS on every endpoint used for end-user interaction.
10.12. Cross-Site Request Forgery
Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) is a web-based attack whereby HTTP
requests are transmitted from the user-agent of an end-user the
server trusts or has authenticated. CSRF attacks on the
authorization endpoint can allow an attacker to obtain authorization
without the consent of the resource owner.
The "state" request parameter SHOULD be used to mitigate against CSRF
attacks, particularly for login CSRF attacks. CSRF attacks against
the client's redirection URI allow an attacker to inject their own
authorization code or access token, which can result in the client
using an access token associated with the attacker's account rather
than the victim's. Depending on the nature of the client and the
protected resources, this can have undesirable and damaging effects.
It is strongly RECOMMENDED that the client includes the "state"
request parameter with authorization requests to the authorization
server. The "state" request parameter MUST contain a non-guessable
value, and the client MUST keep it in a location accessible only by
the client or the user-agent (i.e., protected by same-origin policy).
For example, using a DOM variable (protected by JavaScript or other
DOM-binding language's enforcement of SOP [[ add reference ]]), HTTP
cookie, or HTML5 client-side storage. The authorization server
includes the value of the "state" parameter when redirecting the
user-agent back to the client which MUST then ensure the received
value matches the stored value.
10.13. Clickjacking
[[ Rework to use specification terminology ]]
Clickjacking is the process of tricking end-users into revealing
confidential information or taking control of their device while
clicking on seemingly innocuous web pages. In more detail, a
malicious site loads the target site in a transparent iframe overlaid
on top of a set of dummy buttons which are carefully constructed to
be placed directly under important buttons on the target site. When
a user clicks a visible button, they are actually clicking a button
(such as an "Authorize" button) on the hidden page.
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
To prevent clickjacking (and phishing attacks), native applications
SHOULD use external browsers instead of embedding browsers in an
iframe when requesting end-user authorization. For newer browsers,
avoidance of iframes can be enforced by the authorization server
using the "x-frame-options" header [[ Add reference ]]. This header
can have two values, "deny" and "sameorigin", which will block any
framing or framing by sites with a different origin, respectively.
For older browsers, javascript framebusting techniques can be used
but may not be effective in all browsers.
10.14. Code Injection and Input Validation
A code injection attack occurs when an input or otherwise external
variable is used by an application in which that input can cause
modification of the application logic when used unsanitized. This
may allow an attacker to gain access to the application device or its
data, cause denial of service, or a wide range of malicious side-
effects.
The Authorization server and client MUST validate and sanitize any
value received, and in particular, the value of the "state" and
"redirect_uri" parameters.
11. IANA Considerations
11.1. The OAuth Access Token Type Registry
This specification establishes the OAuth access token type registry.
Access token types are registered on the advice of one or more
Designated Experts (appointed by the IESG or their delegate), with a
Specification Required (using terminology from [RFC5226]). However,
to allow for the allocation of values prior to publication, the
Designated Expert(s) may approve registration once they are satisfied
that such a specification will be published.
Registration requests should be sent to the [TBD]@ietf.org mailing
list for review and comment, with an appropriate subject (e.g.,
"Request for access toke type: example"). [[ Note to RFC-EDITOR: The
name of the mailing list should be determined in consultation with
the IESG and IANA. Suggested name: oauth-ext-review. ]]
Within at most 14 days of the request, the Designated Expert(s) 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.
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
Decisions (or lack thereof) made by the Designated Expert can be
first appealed to Application Area Directors (contactable using
app-ads@tools.ietf.org email address or directly by looking up their
email addresses on http://www.iesg.org/ website) and, if the
appellant is not satisfied with the response, to the full IESG (using
the iesg@iesg.org mailing list).
IANA should only accept registry updates from the Designated
Expert(s), and should direct all requests for registration to the
review mailing list.
11.1.1. Registration Template
Type name:
The name requested (e.g., "example").
Additional Token Endpoint Response Parameters:
Additional response parameters returned together with the
"access_token" parameter. New parameters MUST be separately
registered in the OAuth parameters registry as described by
Section 11.2.
HTTP Authentication Scheme(s):
The HTTP authentication scheme name(s), if any, used to
authenticate protected resources requests using access token of
this type.
Change controller:
For standards-track RFCs, state "IETF". For others, give the name
of the responsible party. Other details (e.g., postal address,
e-mail address, home page URI) may also be included.
Specification document(s):
Reference to document that specifies the parameter, preferably
including a URI that can be used to retrieve a copy of the
document. An indication of the relevant sections may also be
included, but is not required.
11.2. The OAuth Parameters Registry
This specification establishes the OAuth parameters registry.
Additional parameters for inclusion in the authorization endpoint
request, the authorization endpoint response, the token endpoint
request, or the token endpoint response, are registered on the advice
of one or more Designated Experts (appointed by the IESG or their
delegate), with a Specification Required (using terminology from
[RFC5226]). However, to allow for the allocation of values prior to
publication, the Designated Expert(s) may approve registration once
they are satisfied that such a specification will be published.
Registration requests should be sent to the [TBD]@ietf.org mailing
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
list for review and comment, with an appropriate subject (e.g.,
"Request for parameter: example"). [[ Note to RFC-EDITOR: The name of
the mailing list should be determined in consultation with the IESG
and IANA. Suggested name: oauth-ext-review. ]]
Within at most 14 days of the request, the Designated Expert(s) 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.
Decisions (or lack thereof) made by the Designated Expert can be
first appealed to Application Area Directors (contactable using
app-ads@tools.ietf.org email address or directly by looking up their
email addresses on http://www.iesg.org/ website) and, if the
appellant is not satisfied with the response, to the full IESG (using
the iesg@iesg.org mailing list).
IANA should only accept registry updates from the Designated
Expert(s), and should direct all requests for registration to the
review mailing list.
11.2.1. Registration Template
Parameter name:
The name requested (e.g., "example").
Parameter usage location:
The location(s) where parameter can be used. The possible
locations are: authorization request, authorization response,
token request, or token response.
Change controller:
For standards-track RFCs, state "IETF". For others, give the name
of the responsible party. Other details (e.g., postal address,
e-mail address, home page URI) may also be included.
Specification document(s):
Reference to document that specifies the parameter, preferably
including a URI that can be used to retrieve a copy of the
document. An indication of the relevant sections may also be
included, but is not required.
11.2.2. Initial Registry Contents
The OAuth Parameters Registry's initial contents are:
o Parameter name: client_id
o Parameter usage location: authorization request, token request
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
o Change controller: IETF
o Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]
o Parameter name: client_secret
o Parameter usage location: token request
o Change controller: IETF
o Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]
o Parameter name: response_type
o Parameter usage location: authorization request
o Change controller: IETF
o Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]
o Parameter name: redirect_uri
o Parameter usage location: authorization request, token request
o Change controller: IETF
o Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]
o Parameter name: scope
o Parameter usage location: authorization request, authorization
response, token request, token response
o Change controller: IETF
o Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]
o Parameter name: state
o Parameter usage location: authorization request, authorization
response
o Change controller: IETF
o Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]
o Parameter name: code
o Parameter usage location: authorization response, token request
o Change controller: IETF
o Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]
o Parameter name: error_description
o Parameter usage location: authorization response, token response
o Change controller: IETF
o Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]
o Parameter name: error_uri
o Parameter usage location: authorization response, token response
o Change controller: IETF
o Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]
o Parameter name: grant_type
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 55]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
o Parameter usage location: token request
o Change controller: IETF
o Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]
o Parameter name: access_token
o Parameter usage location: authorization response, token response
o Change controller: IETF
o Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]
o Parameter name: token_type
o Parameter usage location: authorization response, token response
o Change controller: IETF
o Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]
o Parameter name: expires_in
o Parameter usage location: authorization response, token response
o Change controller: IETF
o Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]
o Parameter name: username
o Parameter usage location: token request
o Change controller: IETF
o Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]
o Parameter name: password
o Parameter usage location: token request
o Change controller: IETF
o Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]
o Parameter name: refresh_token
o Parameter usage location: token request, token response
o Change controller: IETF
o Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]
11.3. The OAuth Authorization Endpoint Response Type Registry
This specification establishes the OAuth authorization endpoint
response type registry.
Additional response type for use with the authorization endpoint are
registered on the advice of one or more Designated Experts (appointed
by the IESG or their delegate), with a Specification Required (using
terminology from [RFC5226]). However, to allow for the allocation of
values prior to publication, the Designated Expert(s) may approve
registration once they are satisfied that such a specification will
be published.
Registration requests should be sent to the [TBD]@ietf.org mailing
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 56]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
list for review and comment, with an appropriate subject (e.g.,
"Request for response type: example"). [[ Note to RFC-EDITOR: The
name of the mailing list should be determined in consultation with
the IESG and IANA. Suggested name: oauth-ext-review. ]]
Within at most 14 days of the request, the Designated Expert(s) 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.
Decisions (or lack thereof) made by the Designated Expert can be
first appealed to Application Area Directors (contactable using
app-ads@tools.ietf.org email address or directly by looking up their
email addresses on http://www.iesg.org/ website) and, if the
appellant is not satisfied with the response, to the full IESG (using
the iesg@iesg.org mailing list).
IANA should only accept registry updates from the Designated
Expert(s), and should direct all requests for registration to the
review mailing list.
11.3.1. Registration Template
Response type name:
The name requested (e.g., "example").
Change controller:
For standards-track RFCs, state "IETF". For others, give the name
of the responsible party. Other details (e.g., postal address,
e-mail address, home page URI) may also be included.
Specification document(s):
Reference to document that specifies the type, preferably
including a URI that can be used to retrieve a copy of the
document. An indication of the relevant sections may also be
included, but is not required.
11.3.2. Initial Registry Contents
The OAuth Authorization Endpoint Response Type Registry's initial
contents are:
o Response type name: code
o Change controller: IETF
o Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]
o Response type name: token
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 57]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
o Change controller: IETF
o Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]
11.4. The OAuth Extensions Error Registry
This specification establishes the OAuth extensions error registry.
Additional error codes used together with other protocol extensions
(i.e. extension grant types, access token types, or extension
parameters) are registered on the advice of one or more Designated
Experts (appointed by the IESG or their delegate), with a
Specification Required (using terminology from [RFC5226]). However,
to allow for the allocation of values prior to publication, the
Designated Expert(s) may approve registration once they are satisfied
that such a specification will be published.
Registration requests should be sent to the [TBD]@ietf.org mailing
list for review and comment, with an appropriate subject (e.g.,
"Request for error code: example"). [[ Note to RFC-EDITOR: The name
of the mailing list should be determined in consultation with the
IESG and IANA. Suggested name: oauth-ext-review. ]]
Within at most 14 days of the request, the Designated Expert(s) 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.
Decisions (or lack thereof) made by the Designated Expert can be
first appealed to Application Area Directors (contactable using
app-ads@tools.ietf.org email address or directly by looking up their
email addresses on http://www.iesg.org/ website) and, if the
appellant is not satisfied with the response, to the full IESG (using
the iesg@iesg.org mailing list).
IANA should only accept registry updates from the Designated
Expert(s), and should direct all requests for registration to the
review mailing list.
11.4.1. Registration Template
Error name:
The name requested (e.g., "example").
Error usage location:
The location(s) where the error can be used. The possible
locations are: authorization code grant error response
(Section 4.1.2.1), implicit grant error response
(Section 4.2.2.1), or token error response (Section 5.2).
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 58]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
Related protocol extension:
The name of the extension grant type, access token type, or
extension parameter, the error code is used in conjunction with.
Change controller:
For standards-track RFCs, state "IETF". For others, give the name
of the responsible party. Other details (e.g., postal address,
e-mail address, home page URI) may also be included.
Specification document(s):
Reference to document that specifies the error code, preferably
including a URI that can be used to retrieve a copy of the
document. An indication of the relevant sections may also be
included, but is not required.
12. Acknowledgements
The initial OAuth 2.0 protocol specification was edited by David
Recordon, based on two previous publications: the OAuth 1.0 community
specification [RFC5849], and OAuth WRAP (OAuth Web Resource
Authorization Profiles) [I-D.draft-hardt-oauth-01]. The Security
Considerations section was drafted by Torsten Lodderstedt, Mark
McGloin, Phil Hunt, and Anthony Nadalin.
The OAuth 1.0 community specification was edited by Eran Hammer-Lahav
and authored by Mark Atwood, Dirk Balfanz, Darren Bounds, Richard M.
Conlan, Blaine Cook, Leah Culver, Breno de Medeiros, Brian Eaton,
Kellan Elliott-McCrea, Larry Halff, Eran Hammer-Lahav, Ben Laurie,
Chris Messina, John Panzer, Sam Quigley, David Recordon, Eran
Sandler, Jonathan Sergent, Todd Sieling, Brian Slesinsky, and Andy
Smith.
The OAuth WRAP specification was edited by Dick Hardt and authored by
Brian Eaton, Yaron Goland, Dick Hardt, and Allen Tom.
This specification is the work of the OAuth Working Group which
includes dozens of active and dedicated participants. In particular,
the following individuals contributed ideas, feedback, and wording
which shaped and formed the final specification:
Michael Adams, Andrew Arnott, Dirk Balfanz, Aiden Bell, Scott Cantor,
Marcos Caceres, Blaine Cook, Brian Campbell, Brian Eaton, Leah
Culver, Bill de hOra, Brian Eaton, Brian Ellin, Igor Faynberg, George
Fletcher, Tim Freeman, Evan Gilbert, Yaron Goland, Brent Goldman,
Kristoffer Gronowski, Justin Hart, Dick Hardt, Craig Heath, Phil
Hunt, Michael B. Jones, John Kemp, Mark Kent, Raffi Krikorian, Chasen
Le Hara, Rasmus Lerdorf, Torsten Lodderstedt, Hui-Lan Lu, Paul
Madsen, Alastair Mair, Eve Maler, James Manger, Mark McGloin,
Laurence Miao, Chuck Mortimore, Anthony Nadalin, Justin Richer, Peter
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 59]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
Saint-Andre, Nat Sakimura, Rob Sayre, Marius Scurtescu, Naitik Shah,
Luke Shepard, Vlad Skvortsov, Justin Smith, Jeremy Suriel, Christian
Stuebner, Paul Tarjan, Allen Tom, Franklin Tse, Nick Walker, Shane
Weeden, and Skylar Woodward.
Appendix A. Editor's Notes
While many people contributed to this specification throughout its
long journey, the editor would like to acknowledge and thank a few
individuals for their outstanding and invaluable efforts leading up
to the publication of this specification. It is these individuals
without whom this work would not have existed or reached its
successful conclusion.
David Recordon for continuously being one of OAuth's most valuable
assets, bringing pragmatism and urgency to the work, and helping
shape it from its very beginning, as well as being one of the best
collaborators I had the pleasure of working with.
Mark Nottingham for introducing OAuth to the IETF and setting the
community on this course. Lisa Dusseault for her support and
guidance as the Application area director. Blaine Cook, Peter Saint-
Andre, and Hannes Tschofenig for their work as working group chairs.
James Manger for his creative ideas and always insightful feedback.
Brian Campbell, Torsten Lodderstedt, Chuck Mortimore, Justin Richer,
Marius Scurtescu, and Luke Shepard for their continued participation
and valuable feedback.
Special thanks goes to Mike Curtis and Yahoo! for their unconditional
support of this work for over three years.
13. References
13.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.
[RFC2617] Franks, J., Hallam-Baker, P., Hostetler, J., Lawrence, S.,
Leach, P., Luotonen, A., and L. Stewart, "HTTP
Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication",
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 60]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
RFC 2617, June 1999.
[RFC2818] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, January 2005.
[RFC4627] Crockford, D., "The application/json Media Type for
JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)", RFC 4627, July 2006.
[RFC4949] Shirey, R., "Internet Security Glossary, Version 2",
RFC 4949, August 2007.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.
[W3C.REC-html401-19991224]
Hors, A., Raggett, D., and I. Jacobs, "HTML 4.01
Specification", World Wide Web Consortium
Recommendation REC-html401-19991224, December 1999,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224>.
13.2. Informative References
[I-D.draft-hardt-oauth-01]
Hardt, D., Ed., Tom, A., Eaton, B., and Y. Goland, "OAuth
Web Resource Authorization Profiles", January 2010.
[I-D.ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer]
Campbell, B. and C. Mortimore, "SAML 2.0 Bearer Assertion
Grant Type Profile for OAuth 2.0",
draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer-03 (work in progress),
February 2011.
[I-D.ietf-oauth-v2-bearer]
Jones, M., Hardt, D., and D. Recordon, "The OAuth 2.0
Protocol: Bearer Tokens", draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-04
(work in progress), March 2011.
[I-D.ietf-oauth-v2-http-mac]
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 61]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 July 2011
Hammer-Lahav, E., Barth, A., and B. Adida, "HTTP
Authentication: MAC Access Authentication",
draft-ietf-oauth-v2-http-mac-00 (work in progress),
May 2011.
[I-D.ietf-oauth-v2-threatmodel]
Lodderstedt, T., McGloin, M., and P. Hunt, "OAuth 2.0
Threat Model and Security Considerations",
draft-ietf-oauth-v2-threatmodel-00 (work in progress),
July 2011.
[OASIS.saml-core-2.0-os]
Cantor, S., Kemp, J., Philpott, R., and E. Maler,
"Assertions and Protocol for the OASIS Security Assertion
Markup Language (SAML) V2.0", OASIS Standard saml-core-
2.0-os, March 2005.
[RFC5849] Hammer-Lahav, E., "The OAuth 1.0 Protocol", RFC 5849,
April 2010.
Authors' Addresses
Eran Hammer-Lahav (editor)
Yahoo!
Email: eran@hueniverse.com
URI: http://hueniverse.com
David Recordon
Facebook
Email: dr@fb.com
URI: http://www.davidrecordon.com/
Dick Hardt
Microsoft
Email: dick.hardt@gmail.com
URI: http://dickhardt.org/
Hammer-Lahav, et al. Expires January 26, 2012 [Page 62]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.126, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/