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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08

OAuth Working Group                                          N. Sakimura
Internet-Draft                                 Nomura Research Institute
Intended status: Standards Track                       November 04, 2015
Expires: May 7, 2016


                        OAuth Response Metadata
                      draft-sakimura-oauth-meta-05

Abstract

   This specification defines an extensible metadata that may be
   inserted into the OAuth 2.0 responses to assist the clients to
   process those responses.  It is expressed either as a link header, or
   query parameters.  It will allow the client to learn where the
   members in the response could be used.  Since it is just additional
   response header/query parameters, any client that does not understand
   this extension should not break and work normally while supporting
   clients can utilize the metadata to take the advantage of the
   extension.

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 May 7, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 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



Sakimura                   Expires May 7, 2016                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                 OAuth-Meta                  November 2015


   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  Authorization Response  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   4.  Token Endpoint Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     5.1.  Link Type Registration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     6.1.  Query Parameter Tampering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   8.  Document History  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     9.2.  Informational References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6

1.  Introduction

   Although OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749] has been known for its REST
   friendliness, OAuth itself is not RESTful, as it heavily relies on
   out-of-band information to drive the interactions.  This situation
   can be eased by hypertext-enabling the endpoint responses through the
   introduction of data structure that represents such hypertext and
   other metadata.  This specification defines methods to represent such
   metadata in the authorization and token endpoints.

2.  Requirements

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

3.  Authorization Response

   The Authorization response of the implementation of this
   specification MUST return the following query parameter in the
   redirect URI.

   turi  REQUIRED if the response contains code.  Token Endpoint URI.
      The value of this parameter is the URI of the Token Endpoint that
      the code can be sent to obtain the access token.




Sakimura                   Expires May 7, 2016                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                 OAuth-Meta                  November 2015


   ruri  REQUIRED if the response contains an Access Token.  Resource
      URI.  The value of this parameter is the URI of the Resource
      Endpoint that the Access Token can be used at.

   duri  OPTIONAL.  Discovery Endpoint URI.  The URI of from which the
      discovery document can be obtained.

   If the discovery document also includes Token Endpoint URI or
   Resource Endpoint, the value of the turi or ruri takes precedence.

   The following is an example of such resopnse.  Line breaks are for
   display purposes only.

   HTTP/1.1 302 Found
   Location: https://client.example.com/cb?code=SplxlOBeZQQYbYS6WxSbIA
       &turi=https%3A%2F%2Fexample.com%2Ftoken
       &duri=https%3A%2F%2Fexample.com%2Fdisco
       &state=xyz

4.  Token Endpoint Response

   Token Endpoints that implements this specification MUST return the
   following relation (rel) and the corresponding URI value as defined
   in [RFC5988] in the Access Token Response defined in [RFC6749].

   ruri  REQUIRED if the response contains a bearer Access Token.
      Resource URI.  The value of this parameter is the URI of the
      Resource Endpoint that the Access Token can be used at.

   turi  OPTIONAL.  Token Endpoint URI.  The value of this parameter is
      the URI of the Token Endpoint that the Refresh Token can be sent
      to obtain a new Access Token.

   duri  OPTIONAL.  Discovery Endpoint URI.  The URI of from which the
      discovery document can be obtained.

   Following is an example of an HTTPS response.

   HTTP/1.1 200 OK
   Link: <https://example.com/userinfo>; rel="ruri",
    <https://example.com/disco>; rel="duri"
   Content-Type: application/JSON; charset=utf-8

   {
           "access_token":"aCeSsToKen"
   }





Sakimura                   Expires May 7, 2016                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                 OAuth-Meta                  November 2015


5.  IANA Considerations

5.1.  Link Type Registration

   Pursuant to [RFC5988], the following link type registrations [[will
   be]] registered by mail to link-relations@ietf.org.

   o  Relation Name: turl

   o  Description: An OAuth 2.0 Token Endpoint specified in section 3.2
      of [RFC6749].

   o  Reference: This specification

   o  Relation Name: rurl

   o  Description: An OAuth 2.0 Resource Endpoint specified in section
      3.2 of [RFC6750].

   o  Reference: This specification

6.  Security Considerations

6.1.  Query Parameter Tampering

   The query response parameters may be tampered by the man-in-the-
   browser.

7.  Acknowledgements

   Members of OAuth WG helped to form this specification.  Notabely:
   Hannes tschofenig, John Bradley, Justin Richer, Kaoru Maeda, Masashi
   Kurabayashi, Nov Matake, Michael B.  Jones, Phil Hunt, William
   Dennis, (add yourselves).

8.  Document History

   -05

   o  Factored out JSON Meta and now using query param and Web Linking.

   -04

   o  Date refresh.

   -03

   o  Date refresh.



Sakimura                   Expires May 7, 2016                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                 OAuth-Meta                  November 2015


   -02

   o  Added Mike Kelly as an author.

   o  xref fix.

   o  Introduced "operations" as in draft-ietf-scim-api-00#section-3.5.

   o  Updated the informative reference to HAL.

   o  Added description to OAuth Token Endpoint hrefs.

   o  Added content-type to the example.

   o  Added Area and Working Group.

   -01

   o  Some format changes, reference fix, and typo fixes.

   o  Changed 'items' to 'elements' to match the JSON terminology.

   -00

   o  Initial Draft

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [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,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2616, June 1999,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2616>.

   [RFC5988]  Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", RFC 5988,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5988, October 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5988>.

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



Sakimura                   Expires May 7, 2016                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                 OAuth-Meta                  November 2015


   [RFC6750]  Jones, M. and D. Hardt, "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization
              Framework: Bearer Token Usage", RFC 6750,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6750, October 2012,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6750>.

9.2.  Informational References

   [HAL]      Kelly, M., "JSON Hypermedia API Language", February 2013.

   [oauth-lrdd]
              Mills, W., "Link Type Registrations for OAuth 2", October
              2012.

   [RFC4627]  Crockford, D., "The application/json Media Type for
              JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)", RFC 4627,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4627, July 2006,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4627>.

   [RFC6570]  Gregorio, J., Fielding, R., Hadley, M., Nottingham, M.,
              and D. Orchard, "URI Template", RFC 6570,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6570, March 2012,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6570>.

Author's Address

   Nat Sakimura
   Nomura Research Institute

   Email: sakimura@gmail.com






















Sakimura                   Expires May 7, 2016                  [Page 6]


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