< draft-ietf-oauth-reciprocal-01.txt   draft-ietf-oauth-reciprocal-02.txt >
OAuth Working Group D. Hardt OAuth Working Group D. Hardt
Internet-Draft Amazon Internet-Draft July 03, 2019
Intended status: Standards Track October 19, 2018 Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: April 22, 2019 Expires: January 4, 2020
Reciprocal OAuth Reciprocal OAuth
draft-ietf-oauth-reciprocal-01 draft-ietf-oauth-reciprocal-02
Abstract Abstract
There are times when a user has a pair of protected resources that There are times when a user has a pair of protected resources that
would like to request access to each other. While OAuth flows would like to request access to each other. While OAuth flows
typically enable the user to grant a client access to a protected typically enable the user to grant a client access to a protected
resource, granting the inverse access requires an additional flow. resource, granting the inverse access requires an additional flow.
Reciprocal OAuth enables a more seamless experience for the user to Reciprocal OAuth enables a more seamless experience for the user to
grant access to a pair of protected resources. grant access to a pair of protected resources.
skipping to change at page 1, line 35 skipping to change at page 1, line 35
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 22, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 4, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
skipping to change at page 2, line 36 skipping to change at page 2, line 36
provide party B the context of the user. Party B then exchanges the provide party B the context of the user. Party B then exchanges the
authorization code for an access token per the usual OAuth flow. authorization code for an access token per the usual OAuth flow.
1.1. Terminology 1.1. Terminology
In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
"SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
[RFC2119]. [RFC2119].
2. Reciprocal Scope Request 2. Reciprocol Protocol Flow
Party A Party B
+---------------+ +---------------+
| |--(A)- Authorization Request ->| Resource |
| | | Owner B |
| |<-(B)-- Authorization Grant ---| |
| | +---------------+
| Client A |
| | +---------------+
| |--(C)-- Authorization Grant -->| |
| | | Authorization |
| |<-(D)---- Access Token B ------| Server B |
| | Reciprocol Request | |
+---------------+ +---------------+
|
Reciprocol Request
V
+---------------+ +---------------+
| Resource | | Authorization |
| Owner A |--(E)--- Reciprocol Grant ---->| Server B |
| | Access Token B | |
+---------------+ +---------------+
|
Reciprocol Grant
V
+---------------+ +---------------+
| |<-(F)--- Reciprocol Grant -----| |
| Authorization | | Client B |
| Server A |--(G)---- Access Token A ----->| |
+---------------+ +---------------+
Figure 1: Abstract Reciprocol Protocol Flow
The reciprocol authorization between party A and party B are
abstractly represented in Figure 1 and includes the following steps:
o (A - C) are the same as in [RFC6749] 1.2
o (D) Party B optionally includes the reciprocol scope in the
response.
See Section 2.1 for details.
o (E) Party A sends the reciprocol authorization grant to party B.
See Section 2.2.2 for details.
o (F) Party B requests an access token, mirroring step (B)
o (G) Party A issues an access token, mirroring step (C)
2.1. Reciprocal Scope Request
When party B is providing an access token response per [RFC6749] When party B is providing an access token response per [RFC6749]
4.1.4, 4.2.1, 4.3.3 or 4.4.3, party B MAY include an additional query 4.1.4, 4.2.1, 4.3.3 or 4.4.3, party B MAY include an additional query
component in the redirection URI to indicate the scope requested in component in the redirection URI to indicate the scope requested in
the reciprocal grant. the reciprocal grant:
reciprocal OPTIONAL. The scope of party B's reciprocal access reciprocal OPTIONAL
request per [RFC6749] 3.3. The scope of party B's reciprocal access request per [RFC6749] 3.3.
If party B does not provide a reciprocal parameter in the access If party B does not provide a reciprocal parameter in the access
token response, the reciprocal scope will be a value previously token response, the reciprocal scope will be a value previously
preconfigured by party A and party B. preconfigured by party A and party B.
If an authorization code grant access token response per [RFC6749] If an authorization code grant access token response per [RFC6749]
4.1.4, an example successful response: 4.1.4, an example successful response (with extra line breaks for
display purposes only):
HTTP/1.1 200 OK HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/json;charset=UTF-8 Content-Type: application/json;charset=UTF-8
Cache-Control: no-store Cache-Control: no-store
Pragma: no-cache Pragma: no-cache
{ {
"access_token":"2YotnFZFEjr1zCsicMWpAA", "access_token":"2YotnFZFEjr1zCsicMWpAA",
"token_type":"example", "token_type":"example",
"expires_in":3600, "expires_in":3600,
"refresh_token":"tGzv3JOkF0XG5Qx2TlKWIA", "refresh_token":"tGzv3JOkF0XG5Qx2TlKWIA",
"reciprocal":"example_scope", "reciprocal":"example_scope",
"example_parameter":"example_value" "example_parameter":"example_value"
} }
If an authorization code grant access token response per [RFC6749] If an authorization code grant access token response per [RFC6749]
4.2.2, an example successful response (with extra line breaks for 4.2.2, an example successful response (with extra line breaks for
display purposes only): display purposes only):
HTTP/1.1 302 Found HTTP/1.1 302 Found
Location: http://example.com/cb# Location: http://example.com/cb#
access_token=2YotnFZFEjr1zCsicMWpAA& access_token=2YotnFZFEjr1zCsicMWpAA&
state=xyz&token_type=example& state=xyz&
expires_in=3600& token_type=example&
reciprocal="example_scope" expires_in=3600&
reciprocal="example_scope"
3. Reciprocal Authorization Flow When party B is providing an authorization response per [RFC6749]
4.1.2, party B MAY include an additional query component in the
redirection URI to indicate the scope requested in the reciprocal
grant.
reciprocal OPTIONAL. The scope of party B's reciprocal access
request per [RFC6749] 3.3.
If party B does not provide a reciprocal parameter in the
authorization response, the reciprocal scope will be a value
previously preconfigured by party A and party B.
2.2. Reciprocal Authorization Flow
The reciprocal authorization flow starts after the client (party A) The reciprocal authorization flow starts after the client (party A)
has obtained an access token from the authorization server (party B) has obtained an access token from the authorization server (party B)
per [RFC6749] 4.1 Authorization Code Grant. per [RFC6749] 4.1 Authorization Code Grant.
3.1. User Consent 2.2.1. User Consent
Party A obtains consent from the user to grant Party B access to Party A obtains consent from the user to grant Party B access to
protected resources at party A. The consent represents the scopes protected resources at party A. The consent represents the scopes
party B had preconfigured at party A. requested by party B from party A per Section 2.1.
3.2. Reciprocal Authorization Code 2.2.2. Reciprocal Authorization Code
Party A generates an authorization code representing the access Party A generates an authorization code representing the access
granted to party B by the user. Party A then makes a request to granted to party B by the user. Party A then makes a request to
party B's token endpoint authenticating per [RFC6749] 2.3 and sending party B's token endpoint authenticating per [RFC6749] 2.3 and sending
the following parameters using the "application/x-www-form- the following parameters using the "application/x-www-form-
urlencoded" format per [RFC6749] Appendix B with a character encoding urlencoded" format per [RFC6749] Appendix B with a character encoding
of UTF-8 in the HTTP request entity-body: of UTF-8 in the HTTP request entity-body:
grant_type REQUIRED. Value MUST be set to grant_type REQUIRED
"urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:reciprocal". Value MUST be set to "urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:reciprocal".
code REQUIRED. The authorization code generated by party A. code REQUIRED
the authorization code generated by party A.
client_id REQUIRED, party A'a client ID. client_id REQUIRED
party A'a client ID.
access_token REQUIRED, the access token obtained from Party B. Used access_token REQUIRED the access token obtained from Party B. Used
to provide user context. by Party B to identify which user authorization is being requested.
For example, the client makes the following HTTP request using TLS For example, the client makes the following HTTP request using TLS
(with extra line breaks for display purposes only): (with extra line breaks for display purposes only):
POST /token HTTP/1.1 POST /token HTTP/1.1
Host: server.example.com Host: server.example.com
Authorization: Basic ej4hsyfishwssjdusisdhkjsdksusdhjkjsdjk Authorization: Basic ej4hsyfishwssjdusisdhkjsdksusdhjkjsdjk
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
grant_type=urn%3Aietf%3Aparams%3Aoauth%3Agrant-type%3reciprocal&code=hasdyubasdjahsbdkjbasd&client_id=example.com&access_token=sadadojsadlkjasdkljxxlkjdas grant_type=urn%3Aietf%3Aparams%3Aoauth%3Agrant-type%3reciprocal
&code=hasdyubasdjahsbdkjbasd
&client_id=example.com
&access_token=sadadojsadlkjasdkljxxlkjdas
Party B MUST verify the authentication provided by Party A per Party B MUST verify the authentication provided by Party A per
[RFC6749] 2.3 [RFC6749] 2.3
Party B MUST then verify the access token was granted to the client Party B MUST then verify the access token was granted to the client
identified by the client_id. identified by the client_id.
Party B MUST respond with either an HTTP 200 (OK) response if the Party B MUST respond with either an HTTP 200 (OK) response if the
request is valid, or an HTTP 400 "Bad Request" if it is not. request is valid, or an HTTP 400 "Bad Request" if it is not.
Party B then plays the role of the client to make an access token Party B then plays the role of the client to make an access token
request per [RFC6749] 4.1.3. request per [RFC6749] 4.1.3.
4. Authorization Update Flow 3. Authorization Update Flow
After the initial authorization, the user may add or remove scopes After the initial authorization, the user may add or remove scopes
available to the client at the authorization server. For example, available to the client at the authorization server. For example,
the user may grant additional scopes to the client using a voice the user may grant additional scopes to the client using a voice
interface, or revoke some scopes. The authorization server can interface, or revoke some scopes. The authorization server can
update the client with the new authorization by sending a new update the client with the new authorization by sending a new
authorization code per 3.2. authorization code per Section 2.2.2.
5. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
TBD. TBD.
6. Acknowledgements 5. Acknowledgements
TBD. TBD.
7. Normative References 6. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC6749] Hardt, D., Ed., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework", [RFC6749] Hardt, D., Ed., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework",
RFC 6749, DOI 10.17487/RFC6749, October 2012, RFC 6749, DOI 10.17487/RFC6749, October 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6749>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6749>.
skipping to change at page 5, line 29 skipping to change at page 7, line 22
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6750>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6750>.
Appendix A. Document History Appendix A. Document History
A.1. draft-ietf-oauth-reciprical-00 A.1. draft-ietf-oauth-reciprical-00
o Initial version. o Initial version.
A.2. draft-ietf-oauth-reciprical-01 A.2. draft-ietf-oauth-reciprical-01
o changed reciprocal scope request to be in access token response o Changed reciprocal scope request to be in access token response
rather than authorization request rather than authorization request
A.3. draft-ietf-oauth-reciprical-02
o Added in diagram to clarify protocol flow
Author's Address Author's Address
Dick Hardt Dick Hardt
Amazon
Email: dick.hardt@gmail.com Email: dick.hardt@gmail.com
 End of changes. 29 change blocks. 
51 lines changed or deleted 122 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/