draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-16.txt   draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-17.txt 
OAuth Working Group J. Richer OAuth Working Group J. Richer
Internet-Draft The MITRE Corporation Internet-Draft The MITRE Corporation
Intended status: Standards Track M. Jones Intended status: Standards Track M. Jones
Expires: August 10, 2014 Microsoft Expires: November 23, 2014 Microsoft
J. Bradley J. Bradley
Ping Identity Ping Identity
M. Machulak M. Machulak
Newcastle University Newcastle University
P. Hunt P. Hunt
Oracle Corporation Oracle Corporation
February 6, 2014 May 22, 2014
OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration Core Protocol OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration Protocol
draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-16 draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-17
Abstract Abstract
This specification defines mechanisms used to dynamically register This specification defines mechanisms for dynamically registering
OAuth 2.0 clients at authorization servers. OAuth 2.0 clients with authorization servers. Registration requests
send a set of desired client metadata values to the authorization
server and the resulting registration responses return a client
identifier to use at the authorization server and the client metadata
values registered for the client. The client can then use this
registration information to communicate with the authorization server
using the OAuth 2.0 protocol. This specification also defines a set
of common client metadata fields and values for clients to use during
registration.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://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 August 10, 2014. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 23, 2014.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2014 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://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
skipping to change at page 3, line 12 skipping to change at page 3, line 12
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. Protocol Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.3. Protocol Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2. Client Metadata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2. Client Metadata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1. Relationship between Grant Types and Response Types . . . 9 2.1. Relationship between Grant Types and Response Types . . . 11
3. Software Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.2. Human Readable Client Metadata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. Client Registration Endpoint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.3. Software Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1. Client Registration Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3. Client Registration Endpoint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2. Client Registration Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.1. Client Registration Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.2. Client Registration Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.1. Client Information Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4. Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.2. Client Registration Error Response . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.1. Client Information Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.2. Client Registration Error Response . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.1. OAuth Registration Client Metadata Registry . . . . . . . 16 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.1.1. Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.1. OAuth Dynamic Registration Client Metadata Registry . . . 20
6.1.2. Initial Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.1.1. Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.2. OAuth Token Endpoint Authentication Methods Registry . . . 18 5.1.2. Initial Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.2.1. Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5.2. OAuth Token Endpoint Authentication Methods Registry . . . 24
6.2.2. Initial Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5.2.1. Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5.2.2. Initial Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Appendix A. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
A.1. Open versus Protected Dynamic Client Registration . . . . 22 Appendix A. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
A.1.1. Open Dynamic Client Registration . . . . . . . . . . . 22 A.1. Open versus Protected Dynamic Client Registration . . . . 29
A.1.2. Protected Dynamic Client Registration . . . . . . . . 22 A.1.1. Open Dynamic Client Registration . . . . . . . . . . . 29
A.2. Registration Without or With Software Statements . . . . . 22 A.1.2. Protected Dynamic Client Registration . . . . . . . . 29
A.2.1. Registration Without a Software Statement . . . . . . 22 A.2. Registration Without or With Software Statements . . . . . 30
A.2.2. Registration With a Software Statement . . . . . . . . 22 A.2.1. Registration Without a Software Statement . . . . . . 30
A.3. Registration by the Client or the Developer . . . . . . . 23 A.2.2. Registration With a Software Statement . . . . . . . . 30
A.3.1. Registration by the Client . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 A.3. Registration by the Client or Developer . . . . . . . . . 30
A.3.2. Registration by the Developer . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 A.3.1. Registration by the Client . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
A.4. Client ID per Client Instance or per Client Software . . . 23 A.3.2. Registration by the Developer . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
A.4.1. Client ID per Client Software Instance . . . . . . . . 23 A.4. Client ID per Client Instance or per Client Software . . . 30
A.4.2. Client ID Shared between all Instances of Client A.4.1. Client ID per Client Software Instance . . . . . . . . 30
Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 A.4.2. Client ID Shared Among All Instances of Client
A.5. Stateful or Stateless Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
A.5.1. Stateful Client Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 A.5. Stateful or Stateless Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
A.5.2. Stateless Client Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 A.5.1. Stateful Client Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Appendix B. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 A.5.2. Stateless Client Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Appendix C. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Appendix B. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Appendix C. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
In order for an OAuth 2.0 client to utilize an OAuth 2.0 In order for an OAuth 2.0 client to utilize an OAuth 2.0
authorization server, the client needs specific information to authorization server, the client needs specific information to
interact with the server, including an OAuth 2.0 Client ID to use at interact with the server, including an OAuth 2.0 client identifier to
that server. This specification describes how an OAuth 2.0 client use at that server. This specification describes how an OAuth 2.0
can be dynamically registered with an authorization server to obtain client can be dynamically registered with an authorization server to
this information. obtain this information.
As part of the registration process, this specification also defines As part of the registration process, this specification also defines
a mechanism for the client to present the authorization server with a a mechanism for the client to present the authorization server with a
set of metadata, such as a set of valid redirection URIs. This set of metadata, such as a set of valid redirection URIs. This
metadata can either be communicated in a self-asserted fashion or as metadata can either be communicated in a self-asserted fashion or as
a set of metadata called a software statement, which can be signed; a set of metadata called a software statement, which can be digitally
in the case of a signed software statement, the signer is vouching signed or MACed; in the case of a software statement, the issuer is
for the validity of the data about the client. vouching for the validity of the data about the client.
The mechanisms defined in this specification can be used either for a Traditionally, registration of a client with an authorization server
client to dynamically register itself with authorization servers or is performed manually. The mechanisms defined in this specification
for a client developer to programmatically register the client with can be used either for a client to dynamically register itself with
authorization servers. authorization servers or for a client developer to programmatically
register the client with authorization servers.
1.1. Notational Conventions 1.1. Notational Conventions
The key words 'MUST', 'MUST NOT', 'REQUIRED', 'SHALL', 'SHALL NOT', The key words 'MUST', 'MUST NOT', 'REQUIRED', 'SHALL', 'SHALL NOT',
'SHOULD', 'SHOULD NOT', 'RECOMMENDED', 'MAY', and 'OPTIONAL' in this 'SHOULD', 'SHOULD NOT', 'RECOMMENDED', 'MAY', and 'OPTIONAL' in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Unless otherwise noted, all the protocol parameter names and values Unless otherwise noted, all the protocol parameter names and values
are case sensitive. are case sensitive.
1.2. Terminology 1.2. Terminology
This specification uses the terms "Access Token", "Refresh Token", This specification uses the terms "access token", "refresh token",
"Authorization Code", "Authorization Grant", "Authorization Server", "authorization code", "authorization grant", "authorization server",
"Authorization Endpoint", "Client", "Client Identifier", "Client "authorization endpoint", "client", "client identifier", "client
Secret", "Protected Resource", "Resource Owner", "Resource Server", secret", "protected resource", "resource owner", "resource server",
"Response Type", and "Token Endpoint" defined by OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749] "response type", and "token endpoint" defined by OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749]
and uses the term "Claim" defined by JSON Web Token (JWT) [JWT]. and uses the term "Claim" defined by JSON Web Token (JWT) [JWT].
This specification defines the following terms: This specification defines the following terms:
Client Developer The person or organization that builds a client Client Developer
software package and prepares it for distribution. A client The person or organization that builds a client software package
developer obtains a software statement from a software publisher, and prepares it for distribution.
or self-generates one for the purposes of facilitating client
registration.
Client Instance A deployed instance of a piece of client software. Client Instance
Multiple instances of the same piece of client software MAY use A deployed instance of a piece of client software.
the same Client ID value at an authorization server, provided that
the Redirection URI values and potentially other values dictated
by authorization server policy are the same for all instances.
Client Software Software implementing an OAuth 2.0 client. Client Software
Software implementing an OAuth 2.0 client.
Client Registration Endpoint OAuth 2.0 endpoint through which a Client Registration Endpoint
client can be registered at an authorization server. The means by OAuth 2.0 endpoint through which a client can be registered at an
which the URL for this endpoint is obtained are out of scope for authorization server. The means by which the URL for this
this specification. endpoint is obtained are out of scope for this specification.
Initial Access Token OAuth 2.0 access token optionally issued by an Initial Access Token
Authorization Server and used to authorize calls to the client OAuth 2.0 access token optionally issued by an Authorization
registration endpoint. The type and format of this token are Server and used to authorize calls to the client registration
likely service-specific and are out of scope for this endpoint. The type and format of this token are likely service-
specification. The means by which the authorization server issues specific and are out of scope for this specification. The means
this token as well as the means by which the registration endpoint by which the authorization server issues this token as well as the
validates this token are out of scope for this specification. means by which the registration endpoint validates this token are
out of scope for this specification.
Deployment Organization An administrative security domain under Deployment Organization
which, a software API is deployed and protected by an OAuth 2.0 An administrative security domain under which, a software API is
framework. In simple cloud deployments, the software API deployed and protected by an OAuth 2.0 framework. In simple cloud
publisher and the deployment organization may be the same. In deployments, the software API publisher and the deployment
other scenarios, a software publisher may be working with many organization may be the same. In other scenarios, a software
different deployment organizations. publisher may be working with many different deployment
organizations.
Software API Deployment A deployment instance of a software API that Software API Deployment
is protected by OAuth 2.0 in a particular deployment organization A deployed instance of a software API that is protected by OAuth
domain. For any particular software API, there may be one or more 2.0 in a particular deployment organization domain. For any
deployments. A software API deployment typically has an particular software API, there may be one or more deployments. A
associated OAuth 2.0 authorization server endpoint as well as a software API deployment typically has an associated OAuth 2.0
client registration endpoint. The means by which endpoints are authorization server as well as a client registration endpoint.
obtained (discovery) are out of scope for this specification. The means by which endpoints are obtained are out of scope for
this specification.
Software API Publisher The organization that defines a particular Software API Publisher
web accessible API that may deployed in one or more deployment The organization that defines a particular web accessible API that
environments. A publisher may be any commercial, public, private, may deployed in one or more deployment environments. A publisher
or open source organization that is responsible for publishing and may be any commercial, public, private, or open source
distributing software that may be protected via OAuth 2.0. A organization that is responsible for publishing and distributing
software API publisher may issue software statements which client software that may be protected via OAuth 2.0. In some cases a
developers use to distribute with their software to facilitate software API publisher and a client developer may be the same
registration. In some cases a software API publisher and a client organization.
developer may be the same organization.
Software Statement A JSON Web Token (JWT) [JWT] that asserts Software Statement
metadata values about the client software. The JWT MUST be signed A digitally signed or MACed JSON Web Token (JWT) [JWT] that
and contain an "iss" (issuer) claim if its metadata values are asserts metadata values about the client software.
being attested to by the issuer; if the metadata values are not
being attested to, the JWT MAY be unsigned. This can be used by
the registration system to qualify clients for eligibility to
register. It may also be accepted by some authorization servers
directly as a Client ID value, without prior registration.
1.3. Protocol Flow 1.3. Protocol Flow
+--------(A)- Initial Access Token (OPTIONAL) +--------(A)- Initial Access Token (OPTIONAL)
| |
| +----(B)- Software Statement (OPTIONAL) | +----(B)- Software Statement (OPTIONAL)
| | | |
v v v v
+-----------+ +---------------+ +-----------+ +---------------+
| |--(C)- Client Registration Request -->| Client | | |--(C)- Client Registration Request -->| Client |
skipping to change at page 7, line 12 skipping to change at page 7, line 7
initial access token from (A) if one is required by the initial access token from (A) if one is required by the
authorization server. authorization server.
(D) The authorization server registers the client and returns the (D) The authorization server registers the client and returns the
client's registered metadata, a client identifier that is unique client's registered metadata, a client identifier that is unique
at the server, a set of client credentials such as a client secret at the server, a set of client credentials such as a client secret
if applicable for this client, and possibly other values. if applicable for this client, and possibly other values.
2. Client Metadata 2. Client Metadata
Clients have a set of metadata values associated with their unique Clients have a set of metadata values associated with their client
client identifier at an authorization server, such as the list of identifier at an authorization server, such as the list of valid
valid redirect URIs. redirect URIs or a display name.
The client metadata values are used in two ways: The client metadata values are used in two ways:
o as input values to registration requests, and o as input values to registration requests, and
o as output values in registration responses. o as output values in registration responses.
These client metadata values are defined by this specification: The following client metadata fields are defined by this
specification. All client metadata fields are OPTIONAL.
redirect_uris Array of redirect URIs for use in redirect-based flows redirect_uris
such as the authorization code and implicit grant types. It is Array of redirect URIs for use in redirect-based flows such as the
RECOMMENDED that clients using these flows register this authorization code and implicit grant types. It is RECOMMENDED
parameter, and an authorization server SHOULD require registration that clients using these flows register this parameter, and an
of valid redirect URIs for all clients that use these grant types authorization server SHOULD require registration of valid redirect
to protect against token and credential theft attacks. URIs for all clients that use these grant types to protect against
token and credential theft attacks.
token_endpoint_auth_method The requested authentication method for token_endpoint_auth_method
the token endpoint. Values defined by this specification are: The requested authentication method for the token endpoint.
Values defined by this specification are:
* "none": The client is a public client as defined in OAuth 2.0 * "none": The client is a public client as defined in OAuth 2.0
and does not have a client secret. and does not have a client secret.
* "client_secret_post": The client uses the HTTP POST parameters * "client_secret_post": The client uses the HTTP POST parameters
defined in OAuth 2.0 section 2.3.1. defined in OAuth 2.0 section 2.3.1.
* "client_secret_basic": the client uses HTTP Basic defined in * "client_secret_basic": the client uses HTTP Basic defined in
OAuth 2.0 section 2.3.1 OAuth 2.0 section 2.3.1
Additional values can be defined via the IANA OAuth Token Endpoint Additional values can be defined via the IANA OAuth Token Endpoint
Authentication Methods Registry Section 6.2. Absolute URIs can Authentication Methods Registry established in Section 5.2.
also be used as values for this parameter without being Absolute URIs can also be used as values for this parameter
registered. If unspecified or omitted, the default is without being registered. If unspecified or omitted, the default
"client_secret_basic", denoting HTTP Basic Authentication Scheme is "client_secret_basic", denoting HTTP Basic Authentication
as specified in Section 2.3.1 of OAuth 2.0. Scheme as specified in Section 2.3.1 of OAuth 2.0.
grant_types Array of OAuth 2.0 grant types that the Client may use. grant_types
These grant types are defined as follows: Array of OAuth 2.0 grant types that the client may use. These
grant types are defined as follows:
* "authorization_code": The Authorization Code Grant described in * "authorization_code": The Authorization Code Grant described in
OAuth 2.0 Section 4.1 OAuth 2.0 Section 4.1
* "implicit": The Implicit Grant described in OAuth 2.0 Section * "implicit": The Implicit Grant described in OAuth 2.0 Section
4.2 4.2
* "password": The Resource Owner Password Credentials Grant * "password": The Resource Owner Password Credentials Grant
described in OAuth 2.0 Section 4.3 described in OAuth 2.0 Section 4.3
skipping to change at page 8, line 37 skipping to change at page 8, line 34
Bearer Grant defined in OAuth SAML 2 Bearer Token Profiles Bearer Grant defined in OAuth SAML 2 Bearer Token Profiles
[OAuth.SAML2]. [OAuth.SAML2].
Authorization Servers MAY allow for other values as defined in Authorization Servers MAY allow for other values as defined in
grant type extensions to OAuth 2.0. The extension process is grant type extensions to OAuth 2.0. The extension process is
described in OAuth 2.0 Section 2.5. If the token endpoint is used described in OAuth 2.0 Section 2.5. If the token endpoint is used
in the grant type, the value of this parameter MUST be the same as in the grant type, the value of this parameter MUST be the same as
the value of the "grant_type" parameter passed to the token the value of the "grant_type" parameter passed to the token
endpoint defined in the extension. endpoint defined in the extension.
response_types Array of the OAuth 2.0 response types that the Client response_types
may use. These response types are defined as follows: Array of the OAuth 2.0 response types that the client may use.
These response types are defined as follows:
* "code": The Authorization Code response described in OAuth 2.0 * "code": The Authorization Code response described in OAuth 2.0
Section 4.1. Section 4.1.
* "token": The Implicit response described in OAuth 2.0 Section * "token": The Implicit response described in OAuth 2.0 Section
4.2. 4.2.
Authorization servers MAY allow for other values as defined in Authorization servers MAY allow for other values as defined in
response type extensions to OAuth 2.0. The extension process is response type extensions to OAuth 2.0. The extension process is
described in OAuth 2.0 Section 2.5. If the authorization endpoint described in OAuth 2.0 Section 2.5. If the authorization endpoint
is used by the grant type, the value of this parameter MUST be the is used by the grant type, the value of this parameter MUST be the
same as the value of the "response_type" parameter passed to the same as the value of the "response_type" parameter passed to the
authorization endpoint defined in the extension. authorization endpoint defined in the extension.
Authorization servers MUST accept all fields in this list. client_name
Human-readable name of the client to be presented to the user
during authorization. If omitted, the authorization server MAY
display the raw "client_id" value to the user instead. It is
RECOMMENDED that clients always send this field. The value of
this field MAY be internationalized, as described in Section 2.2.
client_uri
URL of a Web page providing information about the client. If
present, the server SHOULD display this URL to the end user in a
clickable fashion. It is RECOMMENDED that clients always send
this field. The value of this field MUST point to a valid web
page. The value of this field MAY be internationalized, as
described in Section 2.2.
logo_uri
URL that references a logo for the client. If present, the server
SHOULD display this image to the end user during approval. The
value of this field MUST point to a valid image file. The value
of this field MAY be internationalized, as described in
Section 2.2.
scope
Space separated list of scope values (as described in Section 3.3
of OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749]) that the client can use when requesting
access tokens. The semantics of values in this list is service
specific. If omitted, an authorization server MAY register a
client with a default set of scopes.
contacts
Array of strings representing ways to contact people responsible
for this client, typically email addresses. The authorization
server MAY make these addresses available to end users for support
requests for the client.
tos_uri
URL that points to a human-readable Terms of Service document for
the client. The Authorization Server SHOULD display this URL to
the end-user if it is given. The Terms of Service usually
describe a contractual relationship between the end-user and the
client that the end-user accepts when authorizing the client. The
value of this field MUST point to a valid web page. The value of
this field MAY be internationalized, as described in Section 2.2.
policy_uri
URL that points to a human-readable Policy document for the
client. The authorization server SHOULD display this URL to the
end-user if it is given. The policy usually describes how an end-
user's data will be used by the client. The value of this field
MUST point to a valid web page. The value of this field MAY be
internationalized, as described in Section 2.2.
jwks_uri
URL of the client's JSON Web Key Set [JWK] document containing the
client's public keys. The value of this field MUST point to a
valid JWK Set document. These keys can be used by higher level
protocols that use signing or encryption.
jwks
JSON Web Key Set [JWK] value containing the client's public keys.
The value of this field MUST be a JSON object containing a valid
JWK Set. These keys can be used by higher level protocols that use
signing or encryption. This parameter is intended to be used by
clients that cannot use the "jwks_uri" parameter. For instance, a
native application might not have a location to host the contents
of the JWK Set that would be reachable by the authorization
server. The "jwks_uri" and "jwks" parameters MUST NOT be used
together.
software_id
Identifier for the software that comprises a client. Unlike
"client_id", which is issued by the authorization server and may
vary between instances, the "software_id" is asserted by the
client software and is intended to be shared among all instances
of the client software. The identifier SHOULD NOT change when
software version changes or when a new installation occurs.
software_version
Version identifier for the software that comprises a client. The
value of this field is a string that is intended to be compared
using string equality matching. The value of the
"software_version" SHOULD change on any update to the client
software.
Extensions and profiles of this specification MAY expand this list. Extensions and profiles of this specification MAY expand this list.
For instance, the [OAuth.Registration.Metadata] specification defines The authorization server MUST ignore any client metadata values sent
additional client metadata values. The authorization server MUST by the client that it does not understand.
ignore any client metadata values sent by the Client that it does not
understand.
Client metadata values can either be communicated directly in the Client metadata values can either be communicated directly in the
body of a registration request, as described in Section 4.1, or body of a registration request, as described in Section 3.1, or
included as claims in a software statement, as described in included as claims in a software statement, as described in
Section 3. If the same client metadata name is present in both Section 2.3, or a mixture of both. If the same client metadata name
locations, the value in the software statement SHOULD take is present in both locations and the software statement is trusted by
precedence. the authorization server, the value of a claim in the software
statement MUST take precedence.
2.1. Relationship between Grant Types and Response Types 2.1. Relationship between Grant Types and Response Types
The "grant_types" and "response_types" values described above are The "grant_types" and "response_types" values described above are
partially orthogonal, as they refer to arguments passed to different partially orthogonal, as they refer to arguments passed to different
endpoints in the OAuth protocol. However, they are related in that endpoints in the OAuth protocol. However, they are related in that
the "grant_types" available to a client influence the the "grant_types" available to a client influence the
"response_types" that the client is allowed to use, and vice versa. "response_types" that the client is allowed to use, and vice versa.
For instance, a "grant_types" value that includes For instance, a "grant_types" value that includes
"authorization_code" implies a "response_types" value that includes "authorization_code" implies a "response_types" value that includes
"code", as both values are defined as part of the OAuth 2.0 "code", as both values are defined as part of the OAuth 2.0
authorization code grant. As such, a server supporting these fields authorization code grant. As such, a server supporting these fields
SHOULD take steps to ensure that a client cannot register itself into SHOULD take steps to ensure that a client cannot register itself into
an inconsistent state. an inconsistent state, for example by returning an
"invalid_client_metadata" error response to an inconsistent
registration request.
The correlation between the two fields is listed in the table below. The correlation between the two fields is listed in the table below.
+-----------------------------------------------+-------------------+ +-----------------------------------------------+-------------------+
| grant_types value includes: | response_types | | grant_types value includes: | response_types |
| | value includes: | | | value includes: |
+-----------------------------------------------+-------------------+ +-----------------------------------------------+-------------------+
| authorization_code | code | | authorization_code | code |
| implicit | token | | implicit | token |
| password | (none) | | password | (none) |
| client_credentials | (none) | | client_credentials | (none) |
| refresh_token | (none) | | refresh_token | (none) |
| urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:jwt-bearer | (none) | | urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:jwt-bearer | (none) |
| urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:saml2-bearer | (none) | | urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:saml2-bearer | (none) |
+-----------------------------------------------+-------------------+ +-----------------------------------------------+-------------------+
Extensions and profiles of this document that introduce new values to Extensions and profiles of this document that introduce new values to
either the "grant_types" or "response_types" parameter MUST document either the "grant_types" or "response_types" parameter MUST document
all correspondences between these two parameter types. all correspondences between these two parameter types.
3. Software Statement 2.2. Human Readable Client Metadata
A Software Statement is a JSON Web Token (JWT) [JWT] that asserts Human-readable client metadata values and client metadata values that
metadata values about the client software. The JWT MUST be signed reference human-readable values MAY be represented in multiple
and contain an "iss" (issuer) claim if its metadata values are being languages and scripts. For example, the values of fields such as
attested to by the issuer; if the metadata values are not being "client_name", "tos_uri", "policy_uri", "logo_uri", and "client_uri"
attested to, the JWT MAY be unsigned. This can be used by the might have multiple locale-specific values in some client
registration system to qualify clients for eligibility to register. registrations to facilitate use in different locations.
It may also be accepted by some authorization servers directly as a
Client ID value, without prior registration.
To obtain a software statement, a client developer may generate a To specify the languages and scripts, BCP47 [RFC5646] language tags
client specific JWT, or a client developer may register with a are added to client metadata member names, delimited by a #
software API publisher to obtain a software statement. The statement character. Since JSON [RFC7159] member names are case sensitive, it
is typically distributed with all copies of a client application. is RECOMMENDED that language tag values used in Claim Names be
spelled using the character case with which they are registered in
the IANA Language Subtag Registry [IANA.Language]. In particular,
normally language names are spelled with lowercase characters, region
names are spelled with uppercase characters, and languages are
spelled with mixed case characters. However, since BCP47 language
tag values are case insensitive, implementations SHOULD interpret the
language tag values supplied in a case insensitive manner. Per the
recommendations in BCP47, language tag values used in metadata member
names should only be as specific as necessary. For instance, using
"fr" might be sufficient in many contexts, rather than "fr-CA" or
"fr-FR".
For example, a client could represent its name in English as
""client_name#en": "My Client"" and its name in Japanese as
""client_name#ja-Jpan-JP":
"\u30AF\u30E9\u30A4\u30A2\u30F3\u30C8\u540D"" within the same
registration request. The authorization server MAY display any or
all of these names to the resource owner during the authorization
step, choosing which name to display based on system configuration,
user preferences or other factors.
If any human-readable field is sent without a language tag, parties
using it MUST NOT make any assumptions about the language, character
set, or script of the string value, and the string value MUST be used
as-is wherever it is presented in a user interface. To facilitate
interoperability, it is RECOMMENDED that clients and servers use a
human-readable field without any language tags in addition to any
language-specific fields, and it is RECOMMENDED that any human-
readable fields sent without language tags contain values suitable
for display on a wide variety of systems.
Implementer's Note: Many JSON libraries make it possible to reference
members of a JSON object as members of an object construct in the
native programming environment of the library. However, while the
"#" character is a valid character inside of a JSON object's member
names, it is not a valid character for use in an object member name
in many programming environments. Therefore, implementations will
need to use alternative access forms for these claims. For instance,
in JavaScript, if one parses the JSON as follows, "var j =
JSON.parse(json);", then the member "client_name#en-us" can be
accessed using the JavaScript syntax "j["client_name#en-us"]".
2.3. Software Statement
A software statement is a JSON Web Token (JWT) [JWT] that asserts
metadata values about the client software as a bundle. A set of
claims that can be used in a software statement are defined
Section 2. When presented to the authorization server as part of a
client registration request, the software statement MUST be digitally
signed or MACed using JWS [JWS] and MUST contain an "iss" (issuer)
claim denoting the party attesting to the claims in the software
statement. It is RECOMMENDED that software statements be digitally
signed using the "RS256" signature algorithm, although particular
applications MAY specify the use of different algorithms.
The means by which a client or developer obtains a software statement
are outside the scope of this specification. Some common methods
could include a client developer generating a client-specific JWT
registering with a software API publisher to obtain a software
statement for a class of clients. The software statement is
typically distributed with all instances of a client application.
The criteria by which authorization servers determine whether to The criteria by which authorization servers determine whether to
trust and utilize the information in a software statement is beyond trust and utilize the information in a software statement are beyond
the scope of this specification. the scope of this specification.
If the authorization server determines that the claims in a software
statement uniquely identify a piece of software, the same Client ID
value MAY be returned for all dynamic registrations using that
software statement. However, authorization servers MAY alternatively
return a unique Client ID value for each dynamic registration of a
piece of software.
In some cases, authorization servers MAY choose to accept a software In some cases, authorization servers MAY choose to accept a software
statement value directly as a Client ID in an authorization request, statement value directly as a client identifier in an authorization
without a prior dynamic client registration having been performed. request, without a prior dynamic client registration having been
The circumstances under which an authorization server would do so, performed. The circumstances under which an authorization server
and the specific software statement characteristics required in this would do so, and the specific software statement characteristics
case, are beyond the scope of this specification. required in this case, are beyond the scope of this specification.
4. Client Registration Endpoint 3. Client Registration Endpoint
The client registration endpoint is an OAuth 2.0 endpoint defined in The client registration endpoint is an OAuth 2.0 endpoint defined in
this document that is designed to allow a client to be registered this document that is designed to allow a client to be registered
with the authorization server. The client registration endpoint MUST with the authorization server. The client registration endpoint MUST
accept HTTP POST messages with request parameters encoded in the accept HTTP POST messages with request parameters encoded in the
entity body using the "application/json" format. The client entity body using the "application/json" format. The client
registration endpoint MUST be protected by a transport-layer security registration endpoint MUST be protected by a transport-layer security
mechanism, and the server MUST support TLS 1.2 RFC 5246 [RFC5246] mechanism, and the server MUST support TLS 1.2 RFC 5246 [RFC5246]
and/or TLS 1.0 [RFC2246] and MAY support additional transport-layer and/or TLS 1.0 [RFC2246] and MAY support additional transport-layer
mechanisms meeting its security requirements. When using TLS, the mechanisms meeting its security requirements. When using TLS, the
Client MUST perform a TLS/SSL server certificate check, per RFC 6125 client MUST perform a TLS/SSL server certificate check, per RFC 6125
[RFC6125]. [RFC6125].
The client registration endpoint MAY be an OAuth 2.0 protected The client registration endpoint MAY be an OAuth 2.0 protected
resource and accept an initial access token in the form of an OAuth resource and accept an initial access token in the form of an OAuth
2.0 [RFC6749] access token to limit registration to only previously 2.0 [RFC6749] access token to limit registration to only previously
authorized parties. The method by which the initial access token is authorized parties. The method by which the initial access token is
obtained by the registrant is generally out-of-band and is out of obtained by the client or developer is generally out-of-band and is
scope for this specification. The method by which the initial access out of scope for this specification. The method by which the initial
token is verified and validated by the client registration endpoint access token is verified and validated by the client registration
is out of scope for this specification. endpoint is out of scope for this specification.
To support open registration and facilitate wider interoperability, To support open registration and facilitate wider interoperability,
the client registration endpoint SHOULD allow initial registration the client registration endpoint SHOULD allow registration requests
requests with no authorization (which is to say, with no OAuth 2.0 with no authorization (which is to say, with no initial access token
access token in the request). These requests MAY be rate-limited or in the request). These requests MAY be rate-limited or otherwise
otherwise limited to prevent a denial-of-service attack on the client limited to prevent a denial-of-service attack on the client
registration endpoint. registration endpoint.
The client registration endpoint MUST ignore all parameters it does The client registration endpoint MUST ignore all parameters it does
not understand. not understand.
4.1. Client Registration Request 3.1. Client Registration Request
This operation registers a new client to the authorization server. This operation registers a client with the authorization server. The
The authorization server assigns this client a unique client authorization server assigns this client a unique client identifier,
identifier, optionally assigns a client secret, and associates the optionally assigns a client secret, and associates the metadata given
metadata given in the request with the issued client identifier. The in the request with the issued client identifier. The request
request includes any client metadata parameters being specified for includes any client metadata parameters being specified for the
the client during the registration. The authorization server MAY client during the registration. The authorization server MAY
provision default values for any items omitted in the client provision default values for any items omitted in the client
metadata. metadata.
Client metadata values may also be provided in a software statement,
as described in Section 3. Software statements are included in
registration requests using this registration parameter:
software_statement A software statement containing client metadata
values about the client software as claims.
To register, the client or developer sends an HTTP POST to the client To register, the client or developer sends an HTTP POST to the client
registration endpoint with a content type of "application/json". The registration endpoint with a content type of "application/json". The
HTTP Entity Payload is a JSON [RFC4627] document consisting of a JSON HTTP Entity Payload is a JSON [RFC7159] document consisting of a JSON
object and all parameters as top-level members of that JSON object. object and all requested client metadata values as top-level members
of that JSON object.
Client metadata values may also be provided in a software statement,
as described in Section 2.3. Software statements are included in the
requesting JSON object using this member:
software_statement
A software statement containing client metadata values about the
client software as claims.
For example, if the server supports open registration (with no For example, if the server supports open registration (with no
initial access token), the client could send the following initial access token), the client could send the following
registration request to the client registration endpoint: registration request to the client registration endpoint:
The following is a non-normative example request not using an initial The following is a non-normative example request not using an initial
access token (with line wraps within values for display purposes access token (with line wraps within values for display purposes
only): only):
POST /register HTTP/1.1 POST /register HTTP/1.1
Content-Type: application/json Content-Type: application/json
Accept: application/json Accept: application/json
Host: server.example.com Host: server.example.com
{ {
"redirect_uris":[ "redirect_uris":[
"https://client.example.org/callback", "https://client.example.org/callback",
"https://client.example.org/callback2"], "https://client.example.org/callback2"],
"client_name":"My Example Client",
"client_name#ja-Jpan-JP":
"\u30AF\u30E9\u30A4\u30A2\u30F3\u30C8\u540D",
"token_endpoint_auth_method":"client_secret_basic", "token_endpoint_auth_method":"client_secret_basic",
"logo_uri":"https://client.example.org/logo.png",
"jwks_uri":"https://client.example.org/my_public_keys.jwks",
"example_extension_parameter": "example_value" "example_extension_parameter": "example_value"
} }
Alternatively, if the server supports authorized registration, the Alternatively, if the server supports authorized registration, the
developer or the client will be provisioned with an initial access developer or the client will be provisioned with an initial access
token (the method by which the initial access token is obtained is token. (The method by which the initial access token is obtained is
out of scope for this specification). The developer or client sends out of scope for this specification.) The developer or client sends
the following authorized registration request to the client the following authorized registration request to the client
registration endpoint. Note that the initial access token sent in registration endpoint. Note that the initial access token sent in
this example as an OAuth 2.0 Bearer Token [RFC6750], but any OAuth this example as an OAuth 2.0 Bearer Token [RFC6750], but any OAuth
2.0 token type could be used by an authorization server. 2.0 token type could be used by an authorization server.
The following is a non-normative example request using an initial The following is a non-normative example request using an initial
access token (with line wraps within values for display purposes access token (with line wraps within values for display purposes
only): only):
POST /register HTTP/1.1 POST /register HTTP/1.1
Content-Type: application/json Content-Type: application/json
Accept: application/json Accept: application/json
Authorization: Bearer ey23f2.adfj230.af32-developer321 Authorization: Bearer ey23f2.adfj230.af32-developer321
Host: server.example.com Host: server.example.com
{ {
"redirect_uris":["https://client.example.org/callback", "redirect_uris":["https://client.example.org/callback",
"https://client.example.org/callback2"], "https://client.example.org/callback2"],
"client_name":"My Example Client",
"client_name#ja-Jpan-JP":
"\u30AF\u30E9\u30A4\u30A2\u30F3\u30C8\u540D",
"token_endpoint_auth_method":"client_secret_basic", "token_endpoint_auth_method":"client_secret_basic",
"policy_uri":"https://client.example.org/policy.html",
"jwks":{"keys":[{...omitted for brevity...}]},
"example_extension_parameter": "example_value" "example_extension_parameter": "example_value"
} }
In the following example, some registration parameters are conveyed In the following example, some registration parameters are conveyed
as claims in a software statement (with line wraps within values for as claims in a software statement, while some values specific to the
display purposes only): client instance are conveyed as regular parameters (with line wraps
within values for display purposes only):
POST /register HTTP/1.1 POST /register HTTP/1.1
Content-Type: application/json Content-Type: application/json
Accept: application/json Accept: application/json
Host: server.example.com Host: server.example.com
{ {
"redirect_uris":[ "redirect_uris":[
"https://client.example.org/callback", "https://client.example.org/callback",
"https://client.example.org/callback2" "https://client.example.org/callback2"
], ],
"software_statement":"eyJhbGciOiJFUzI1NiJ9. "software_statement":"eyJhbGciOiJFUzI1NiJ9.
eyJpc3Mi[...omitted for brevity...]. eyJpc3Mi[...omitted for brevity...].
J9l-ZhwP[...omitted for brevity...]", J9l-ZhwP[...omitted for brevity...]",
"extension_parameter":"foo" "scope":"read write",
"example_extension_parameter":"example_value"
} }
4.2. Client Registration Response 3.2. Client Registration Response
Upon successful registration, the authorization server generates a Upon successful registration, the authorization server returns a
new client identifier for the client. This client identifier MUST be client identifier for the client. The server responds with an HTTP
unique at the server and MUST NOT be in use by any other client. The 201 Created code and a body of type "application/json" with content
server responds with an HTTP 201 Created code and a body of type as described in Section 4.1.
"application/json" with content as described in Section 5.1.
Upon an unsuccessful registration, the authorization server responds Upon an unsuccessful registration, the authorization server responds
with an error, as described in Section 5.2. with an error, as described in Section 4.2.
5. Responses 4. Responses
The following responses are sent in response to registration The following responses are sent in response to registration
requests. requests.
5.1. Client Information Response 4.1. Client Information Response
The response contains the client identifier as well as the client The response contains the client identifier as well as the client
secret, if the client is a confidential client. The response MAY secret, if the client is a confidential client. The response MAY
contain additional fields as specified by extensions to this contain additional fields as specified by extensions to this
specification. specification.
client_id REQUIRED. Unique client identifier. It MUST NOT be client_id
currently valid for any other distinct registered client. It MAY REQUIRED. OAuth 2.0 client identifier. It SHOULD NOT be
be the same as the Client ID value used by other instances of this currently valid for any other registered client, though an
client, provided that the Redirection URI values and potentially Authorization Server MAY issue the same client identifier to
other values dictated by authorization server policy are the same multiple instances of a registered client, at its discretion.
for all instances.
client_secret OPTIONAL. The client secret. If issued, this MUST be client_secret
OPTIONAL. OAuth 2.0 client secret. If issued, this MUST be
unique for each "client_id". This value is used by confidential unique for each "client_id". This value is used by confidential
clients to authenticate to the token endpoint as described in clients to authenticate to the token endpoint as described in
OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749] Section 2.3.1. OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749] Section 2.3.1.
client_id_issued_at OPTIONAL. Time at which the Client Identifier client_id_issued_at
was issued. The time is represented as the number of seconds from OPTIONAL. Time at which the client identifier was issued. The
1970-01-01T0:0:0Z as measured in UTC until the date/time. time is represented as the number of seconds from 1970-01-
01T0:0:0Z as measured in UTC until the date/time.
client_secret_expires_at REQUIRED if "client_secret" is issued. client_secret_expires_at
Time at which the "client_secret" will expire or 0 if it will not REQUIRED if "client_secret" is issued. Time at which the client
expire. The time is represented as the number of seconds from secret will expire or 0 if it will not expire. The time is
1970-01-01T0:0:0Z as measured in UTC until the date/time. represented as the number of seconds from 1970-01-01T0:0:0Z as
measured in UTC until the date/time.
Additionally, the Authorization Server MUST return all registered Additionally, the Authorization Server MUST return all registered
metadata about this client, including any fields provisioned by the metadata about this client, including any fields provisioned by the
authorization server itself. The authorization server MAY reject or authorization server itself. The authorization server MAY reject or
replace any of the client's requested metadata values submitted replace any of the client's requested metadata values submitted
during the registration or update requests and substitute them with during the registration or update requests and substitute them with
suitable values. suitable values.
The response is an "application/json" document with all parameters as The response is an "application/json" document with all parameters as
top-level members of a JSON object [RFC4627]. top-level members of a JSON object [RFC7159].
If a software statement was used as part of the registration, its If a software statement was used as part of the registration, its
value SHOULD be returned in the response and its value MUST be value MUST be returned in the response along with other metadata.
returned if the authorization server supports registration management Client metadata elements used from the software statement MUST also
operations [OAuth.Registration.Management] that would require its be returned directly as top-level client metadata values in the
presence in subsequent operations. Client metadata elements used registration response (possibly with different values, since the
from the software statement MUST also be returned directly as top- values requested and the values used may differ).
level client metadata values in the registration response (possibly
with different values, since the values requested and the values used
may differ).
Following is a non-normative example response: Following is a non-normative example response:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/json Content-Type: application/json
Cache-Control: no-store Cache-Control: no-store
Pragma: no-cache Pragma: no-cache
{ {
"client_id":"s6BhdRkqt3", "client_id":"s6BhdRkqt3",
"client_secret": "cf136dc3c1fc93f31185e5885805d", "client_secret": "cf136dc3c1fc93f31185e5885805d",
"client_id_issued_at":2893256800, "client_id_issued_at":2893256800,
"client_secret_expires_at":2893276800, "client_secret_expires_at":2893276800,
"redirect_uris":[ "redirect_uris":[
"https://client.example.org/callback", "https://client.example.org/callback",
"https://client.example.org/callback2"], "https://client.example.org/callback2"],
"grant_types": ["authorization_code", "refresh_token"], "grant_types": ["authorization_code", "refresh_token"],
"token_endpoint_auth_method": "client_secret_basic", "client_name":"My Example Client",
"client_name#ja-Jpan-JP":
"\u30AF\u30E9\u30A4\u30A2\u30F3\u30C8\u540D",
"token_endpoint_auth_method":"client_secret_basic",
"logo_uri":"https://client.example.org/logo.png",
"jwks_uri":"https://client.example.org/my_public_keys.jwks",
"example_extension_parameter": "example_value" "example_extension_parameter": "example_value"
} }
5.2. Client Registration Error Response 4.2. Client Registration Error Response
When an OAuth 2.0 error condition occurs, such as the client When an OAuth 2.0 error condition occurs, such as the client
presenting an invalid initial access token, the authorization server presenting an invalid initial access token, the authorization server
returns an error response appropriate to the OAuth 2.0 token type. returns an error response appropriate to the OAuth 2.0 token type.
When a registration error condition occurs, the authorization server When a registration error condition occurs, the authorization server
returns an HTTP 400 status code (unless otherwise specified) with returns an HTTP 400 status code (unless otherwise specified) with
content type "application/json" consisting of a JSON object [RFC4627] content type "application/json" consisting of a JSON object [RFC7159]
describing the error in the response body. describing the error in the response body.
The JSON object contains two members: The JSON object contains two members:
error Single ASCII error code string. error
Single ASCII error code string.
error_description Human-readable ASCII text description of the error error_description
used for debugging. Human-readable ASCII text description of the error used for
debugging.
This specification defines the following error codes: This specification defines the following error codes:
invalid_redirect_uri The value of one or more "redirect_uris" is invalid_redirect_uri
invalid. The value of one or more redirection URIs is invalid.
invalid_client_metadata The value of one of the client metadata invalid_client_metadata
fields is invalid and the server has rejected this request. Note The value of one of the client metadata fields is invalid and the
that an Authorization server MAY choose to substitute a valid server has rejected this request. Note that an Authorization
value for any requested parameter of a client's metadata. server MAY choose to substitute a valid value for any requested
parameter of a client's metadata.
invalid_software_statement The software statement presented is invalid_software_statement
invalid. The software statement presented is invalid.
unapproved_software_statement The software statement presented is unapproved_software_statement
not approved for use with this authorization server. The software statement presented is not approved for use by this
authorization server.
Following is a non-normative example of an error response (with line Following is a non-normative example of an error response resulting
wraps for display purposes only): from a redirect URI that has been blacklisted by the authorization
server (with line wraps within values for display purposes only):
HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
Content-Type: application/json Content-Type: application/json
Cache-Control: no-store Cache-Control: no-store
Pragma: no-cache Pragma: no-cache
{ {
"error":"invalid_redirect_uri", "error": "invalid_redirect_uri",
"error_description":"The redirect URI http://sketchy.example.com "error_description": "The redirect URI http://sketchy.example.com
is not allowed for this server." is not allowed by this server."
} }
6. IANA Considerations Following is a non-normative example of an error response resulting
from an inconsistent combination of "response_types" and
"grant_types" values (with line wraps within values for display
purposes only):
6.1. OAuth Registration Client Metadata Registry HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
Content-Type: application/json
Cache-Control: no-store
Pragma: no-cache
This specification establishes the OAuth Registration Client Metadata {
registry. "error": "invalid_client_metadata",
"error_description": "The grant type 'authorization_code' must be
registered along with the response type 'code' but found only
'implicit' instead."
}
5. IANA Considerations
5.1. OAuth Dynamic Registration Client Metadata Registry
This specification establishes the OAuth Dynamic Registration Client
Metadata registry.
OAuth registration client metadata values are registered with a OAuth registration client metadata values are registered with a
Specification Required ([RFC5226]) after a two-week review period on Specification Required ([RFC5226]) after a two-week review period on
the oauth-ext-review@ietf.org mailing list, on the advice of one or the oauth-ext-review@ietf.org mailing list, on the advice of one or
more Designated Experts. However, to allow for the allocation of more Designated Experts. However, to allow for the allocation of
values prior to publication, the Designated Expert(s) may approve values prior to publication, the Designated Expert(s) may approve
registration once they are satisfied that such a specification will registration once they are satisfied that such a specification will
be published. be published.
Registration requests must be sent to the oauth-ext-review@ietf.org Registration requests must be sent to the oauth-ext-review@ietf.org
mailing list for review and comment, with an appropriate subject mailing list for review and comment, with an appropriate subject
(e.g., "Request to register OAuth Registration Client Metadata name: (e.g., "Request to register OAuth Dynamic Registration Client
example"). Metadata name: example").
Within the review period, the Designated Expert(s) will either Within the review period, the Designated Expert(s) will either
approve or deny the registration request, communicating this decision approve or deny the registration request, communicating this decision
to the review list and IANA. Denials should include an explanation to the review list and IANA. Denials should include an explanation
and, if applicable, suggestions as to how to make the request and, if applicable, suggestions as to how to make the request
successful. successful.
IANA must only accept registry updates from the Designated Expert(s) IANA must only accept registry updates from the Designated Expert(s)
and should direct all requests for registration to the review mailing and should direct all requests for registration to the review mailing
list. list.
6.1.1. Registration Template 5.1.1. Registration Template
Client Metadata Name: The name requested (e.g., "example"). This Client Metadata Name:
name is case sensitive. Names that match other registered names The name requested (e.g., "example"). This name is case
in a case insensitive manner SHOULD NOT be accepted. sensitive. Names that match other registered names in a case
insensitive manner SHOULD NOT be accepted.
Client Metadata Description: Client Metadata Description:
Brief description of the metadata value (e.g., "Example Brief description of the metadata value (e.g., "Example
description"). description").
Change controller: For Standards Track RFCs, state "IETF". For Change controller:
others, give the name of the responsible party. Other details For Standards Track RFCs, state "IETF". For others, give the name
(e.g., postal address, email address, home page URI) may also be of the responsible party. Other details (e.g., postal address,
included. email address, home page URI) may also be included.
Specification document(s): Reference to the document(s) that specify Specification document(s):
the token endpoint authorization method, preferably including a Reference to the document(s) that specify the token endpoint
URI that can be used to retrieve a copy of the document(s). An authorization method, preferably including a URI that can be used
indication of the relevant sections may also be included but is to retrieve a copy of the document(s). An indication of the
not required. relevant sections may also be included but is not required.
6.1.2. Initial Registry Contents 5.1.2. Initial Registry Contents
The initial contents of the OAuth Registration Client Metadata The initial contents of the OAuth Dynamic Registration Client
registry are: Metadata registry are:
o Client Metadata Name: "redirect_uris" o Client Metadata Name: "redirect_uris"
o Client Metadata Description: Array of redirect URIs for use in o Client Metadata Description: Array of redirect URIs for use in
redirect-based flows redirect-based flows
o Change controller: IESG o Change controller: IESG
o Specification document(s): [[ this document ]] o Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]
o Client Metadata Name: "token_endpoint_auth_method" o Client Metadata Name: "token_endpoint_auth_method"
o Client Metadata Description: Requested authentication method for o Client Metadata Description: Requested authentication method for
the token endpoint the token endpoint
o Change controller: IESG o Change controller: IESG
o Specification document(s): [[ this document ]] o Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]
o Client Metadata Name: "grant_types" o Client Metadata Name: "grant_types"
o Client Metadata Description: Array of OAuth 2.0 grant types that o Client Metadata Description: Array of OAuth 2.0 grant types that
the Client may use the client may use
o Change controller: IESG o Change controller: IESG
o Specification document(s): [[ this document ]] o Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]
o Client Metadata Name: "response_types" o Client Metadata Name: "response_types"
o Client Metadata Description: Array of the OAuth 2.0 response types o Client Metadata Description: Array of the OAuth 2.0 response types
that the Client may use that the client may use
o Change controller: IESG o Change controller: IESG
o Specification document(s): [[ this document ]] o Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]
6.2. OAuth Token Endpoint Authentication Methods Registry o Client Metadata Name: "client_name"
o Client Metadata Description: Human-readable name of the client to
be presented to the user
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): [[ this document ]]
o Client Metadata Name: "client_uri"
o Client Metadata Description: URL of a Web page providing
information about the client
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): [[ this document ]]
o Client Metadata Name: "logo_uri"
o Client Metadata Description: URL that references a logo for the
client
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): [[ this document ]]
o Client Metadata Name: "scope"
o Client Metadata Description: Space separated list of scope values
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): [[ this document ]]
o Client Metadata Name: "contacts"
o Client Metadata Description: Array of strings representing ways to
contact people responsible for this client, typically email
addresses
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]
o Client Metadata Name: "tos_uri"
o Client Metadata Description: URL that points to a human-readable
Terms of Service document for the client
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): [[ this document ]]
o Client Metadata Name: "policy_uri"
o Client Metadata Description: URL that points to a human-readable
Policy document for the client
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): [[ this document ]]
o Client Metadata Name: "jwks_uri"
o Client Metadata Description: URL for the client's JSON Web Key Set
[JWK] document representing the client's public keys
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): [[ this document ]]
o Client Metadata Name: "jwks"
o Client Metadata Description: The client's JSON Web Key Set [JWK]
document representing the client's public keys
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): [[ this document ]]
o Client Metadata Name: "software_id"
o Client Metadata Description: Identifier for the software that
comprises a client
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): [[ this document ]]
o Client Metadata Name: "software_version"
o Client Metadata Description: Version identifier for the software
that comprises a client
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): [[ this document ]]
o Client Metadata Name: "client_id"
o Client Metadata Description: Client identifier
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): [[ this document ]]
o Client Metadata Name: "client_secret"
o Client Metadata Description: Client secret
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): [[ this document ]]
o Client Metadata Name: "client_id_issued_at"
o Client Metadata Description: Time at which the client identifier
was issued
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): [[ this document ]]
o Client Metadata Name: "client_secret_expires_at"
o Client Metadata Description: Time at which the client secret will
expire
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): [[ this document ]]
5.2. OAuth Token Endpoint Authentication Methods Registry
This specification establishes the OAuth Token Endpoint This specification establishes the OAuth Token Endpoint
Authentication Methods registry. Authentication Methods registry.
Additional values for use as "token_endpoint_auth_method" metadata Additional values for use as "token_endpoint_auth_method" metadata
values are registered with a Specification Required ([RFC5226]) after values are registered with a Specification Required ([RFC5226]) after
a two-week review period on the oauth-ext-review@ietf.org mailing a two-week review period on the oauth-ext-review@ietf.org mailing
list, on the advice of one or more Designated Experts. However, to list, on the advice of one or more Designated Experts. However, to
allow for the allocation of values prior to publication, the allow for the allocation of values prior to publication, the
Designated Expert(s) may approve registration once they are satisfied Designated Expert(s) may approve registration once they are satisfied
skipping to change at page 18, line 38 skipping to change at page 24, line 33
Within the review period, the Designated Expert(s) will either Within the review period, the Designated Expert(s) will either
approve or deny the registration request, communicating this decision approve or deny the registration request, communicating this decision
to the review list and IANA. Denials should include an explanation to the review list and IANA. Denials should include an explanation
and, if applicable, suggestions as to how to make the request and, if applicable, suggestions as to how to make the request
successful. successful.
IANA must only accept registry updates from the Designated Expert(s) IANA must only accept registry updates from the Designated Expert(s)
and should direct all requests for registration to the review mailing and should direct all requests for registration to the review mailing
list. list.
6.2.1. Registration Template 5.2.1. Registration Template
Token Endpoint Authorization Method Name: The name requested (e.g., Token Endpoint Authorization Method Name:
"example"). This name is case sensitive. Names that match other The name requested (e.g., "example"). This name is case
registered names in a case insensitive manner SHOULD NOT be sensitive. Names that match other registered names in a case
accepted. insensitive manner SHOULD NOT be accepted.
Change controller: For Standards Track RFCs, state "IETF". For Change controller:
others, give the name of the responsible party. Other details For Standards Track RFCs, state "IETF". For others, give the name
(e.g., postal address, email address, home page URI) may also be of the responsible party. Other details (e.g., postal address,
included. email address, home page URI) may also be included.
Specification document(s): Reference to the document(s) that specify Specification document(s):
the token endpoint authorization method, preferably including a Reference to the document(s) that specify the token endpoint
URI that can be used to retrieve a copy of the document(s). An authorization method, preferably including a URI that can be used
indication of the relevant sections may also be included but is to retrieve a copy of the document(s). An indication of the
not required. relevant sections may also be included but is not required.
6.2.2. Initial Registry Contents 5.2.2. Initial Registry Contents
The initial contents of the OAuth Token Endpoint Authentication The initial contents of the OAuth Token Endpoint Authentication
Methods registry are: Methods registry are:
o Token Endpoint Authorization Method Name: "none" o Token Endpoint Authorization Method Name: "none"
o Change controller: IESG o Change controller: IESG
o Specification document(s): [[ this document ]] o Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]
o Token Endpoint Authorization Method Name: "client_secret_post" o Token Endpoint Authorization Method Name: "client_secret_post"
o Change controller: IESG o Change controller: IESG
o Specification document(s): [[ this document ]] o Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]
o Token Endpoint Authorization Method Name: "client_secret_basic" o Token Endpoint Authorization Method Name: "client_secret_basic"
o Change controller: IESG o Change controller: IESG
o Specification document(s): [[ this document ]] o Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]
7. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
Since requests to the client registration endpoint result in the Since requests to the client registration endpoint result in the
transmission of clear-text credentials (in the HTTP request and transmission of clear-text credentials (in the HTTP request and
response), the Authorization Server MUST require the use of a response), the Authorization Server MUST require the use of a
transport-layer security mechanism when sending requests to the transport-layer security mechanism when sending requests to the
registration endpoint. The server MUST support TLS 1.2 RFC 5246 registration endpoint. The server MUST support TLS 1.2 RFC 5246
[RFC5246] and/or TLS 1.0 [RFC2246] and MAY support additional [RFC5246] and/or TLS 1.0 [RFC2246] and MAY support additional
transport-layer mechanisms meeting its security requirements. When transport-layer mechanisms meeting its security requirements. When
using TLS, the Client MUST perform a TLS/SSL server certificate using TLS, the client MUST perform a TLS/SSL server certificate
check, per RFC 6125 [RFC6125]. check, per RFC 6125 [RFC6125].
For clients that use redirect-based grant types such as For clients that use redirect-based grant types such as
"authorization_code" and "implicit", authorization servers SHOULD "authorization_code" and "implicit", authorization servers SHOULD
require clients to register their "redirect_uris". Requiring clients require clients to register their "redirect_uris" in full. Requiring
to do so can help mitigate attacks where rogue actors inject and clients to do so can help mitigate attacks where rogue actors inject
impersonate a validly registered client and intercept its and impersonate a validly registered client and intercept its
authorization code or tokens through an invalid redirect URI. authorization code or tokens through an invalid redirect URI or open
redirector.
Public clients MAY register with an authorization server using this Public clients MAY register with an authorization server using this
protocol, if the authorization server's policy allows them. Public protocol, if the authorization server's policy allows them. Public
clients use a "none" value for the "token_endpoint_auth_method" clients use a "none" value for the "token_endpoint_auth_method"
metadata field and are generally used with the "implicit" grant type. metadata field and are generally used with the "implicit" grant type.
Often these clients will be short-lived in-browser applications Often these clients will be short-lived in-browser applications
requesting access to a user's resources and access is tied to a requesting access to a user's resources and access is tied to a
user's active session at the authorization server. Since such user's active session at the authorization server. Since such
clients often do not have long-term storage, it's possible that such clients often do not have long-term storage, it's possible that such
clients would need to re-register every time the browser application clients would need to re-register every time the browser application
skipping to change at page 20, line 34 skipping to change at page 26, line 29
grant types simultaneously. Similarly, the "authorization_code" grant types simultaneously. Similarly, the "authorization_code"
grant type is used to represent access on behalf of an end user, but grant type is used to represent access on behalf of an end user, but
the "client_credentials" grant type represents access on behalf of the "client_credentials" grant type represents access on behalf of
the client itself. For security reasons, an authorization server the client itself. For security reasons, an authorization server
could require that different scopes be used for these different use could require that different scopes be used for these different use
cases, and as a consequence it MAY disallow these two grant types cases, and as a consequence it MAY disallow these two grant types
from being registered together by the same client. In all of these from being registered together by the same client. In all of these
cases, the authorization server would respond with an cases, the authorization server would respond with an
"invalid_client_metadata" error response. "invalid_client_metadata" error response.
8. References Unless used as a claim in a software statement, the authorization
server MUST treat all client metadata as self-asserted. For
instance, a rogue client might use the name and logo of a legitimate
client that it is trying to impersonate. Additionally, a rogue
client might try to use the software identifier or software version
of a legitimate client to attempt to associate itself on the
authorization server with instances of the legitimate client. To
counteract this, an authorization server needs to take steps to
mitigate this risk by looking at the entire registration request and
client configuration. For instance, an authorization server could
issue a warning if the domain/site of the logo doesn't match the
domain/site of redirect URIs. An authorization server could also
refuse registration requests from a known software identifier that is
requesting different redirect URIs or a different client homepage
URI. An authorization server can also present warning messages to
end users about dynamically registered clients in all cases,
especially if such clients have been recently registered or have not
been trusted by any users at the authorization server before.
8.1. Normative References In a situation where the authorization server is supporting open
client registration, it must be extremely careful with any URL
provided by the client that will be displayed to the user (e.g.
"logo_uri", "tos_uri", "client_uri", and "policy_uri"). For
instance, a rogue client could specify a registration request with a
reference to a drive-by download in the "policy_uri". The
authorization server SHOULD check to see if the "logo_uri",
"tos_uri", "client_uri", and "policy_uri" have the same host and
scheme as the those defined in the array of "redirect_uris" and that
all of these URIs resolve to valid web pages.
Clients MAY use both the direct JSON object and the JWT-encoded
software statement to present client metadata to the authorization
server as part of the registration request. A software statement is
cryptographically protected and represents claims made by the issuer
of the statement, while the JSON object represents the self-asserted
claims made by the client or developer directly. If the software
statement is valid and trusted, the values of client metadata within
the software statement MUST take precedence over those metadata
values presented in the plain JSON object, which could have been
modified en route.
The software statement is an item that is self-asserted by the
client, even though its contents have been digitally signed or MACed
by the issuer of the software statement. As such, presentation of
the software statement is not sufficient in most cases to fully
identity a piece of client software. An initial access token, in
contrast, does not necessarily contain information about a particular
piece of client software but instead represents authorization to use
the registration endpoint. An authorization server MUST consider the
full registration request, including the software statement, initial
access token, and JSON client metadata values, when deciding whether
to honor a given registration request.
Since a client identifier is a public value that can be used to
impersonate a client at the authorization endpoint, an authorization
server that decides to issue the same client identifier to multiple
instances of a registered client MUST be very particular about the
circumstances under which this occurs. For instance, the
authorization server can limit a given client identifier to clients
using the same redirect-based flow and the same redirect URIs. An
authorization server SHOULD NOT issue the same client secret to
multiple instances of a registered client, even if they are issued
the same client identifier, or else the client secret could be
leaked, allowing malicious imposters to impersonate a confidential
client.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[IANA.Language]
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), "Language
Subtag Registry", 2005.
[JWK] Jones, M., "JSON Web Key (JWK)",
draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key (work in progress),
April 2014.
[JWS] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web
Signature (JWS)", draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature (work
in progress), April 2014.
[JWT] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token [JWT] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token
(JWT)", draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token (work in (JWT)", draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token (work in
progress), January 2014. progress), April 2014.
[OAuth.JWT] [OAuth.JWT]
Jones, M., Campbell, B., and C. Mortimore, "JSON Web Token Jones, M., Campbell, B., and C. Mortimore, "JSON Web Token
(JWT) Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and (JWT) Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and
Authorization Grants", draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer (work Authorization Grants", draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer (work
in progress), December 2013. in progress), April 2014.
[OAuth.Registration.Management]
Richer, J., Jones, M., Bradley, J., Machulak, M., and P.
Hunt, "OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration Management
Protocol", draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-management (work in
progress), February 2014.
[OAuth.SAML2] [OAuth.SAML2]
Campbell, B., Mortimore, C., and M. Jones, "SAML 2.0 Campbell, B., Mortimore, C., and M. Jones, "SAML 2.0
Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and
Authorization Grants", draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer (work Authorization Grants", draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer (work
in progress), December 2013. in progress), April 2014.
[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, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2246] Dierks, T. and C. Allen, "The TLS Protocol Version 1.0", [RFC2246] Dierks, T. and C. Allen, "The TLS Protocol Version 1.0",
RFC 2246, January 1999. RFC 2246, January 1999.
[RFC4627] Crockford, D., "The application/json Media Type for
JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)", RFC 4627, July 2006.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008. May 2008.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security [RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008. (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.
[RFC5646] Phillips, A. and M. Davis, "Tags for Identifying
Languages", BCP 47, RFC 5646, September 2009.
[RFC6125] Saint-Andre, P. and J. Hodges, "Representation and [RFC6125] Saint-Andre, P. and J. Hodges, "Representation and
Verification of Domain-Based Application Service Identity Verification of Domain-Based Application Service Identity
within Internet Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509 within Internet Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509
(PKIX) Certificates in the Context of Transport Layer (PKIX) Certificates in the Context of Transport Layer
Security (TLS)", RFC 6125, March 2011. Security (TLS)", RFC 6125, March 2011.
[RFC6749] Hardt, D., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework", [RFC6749] Hardt, D., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework",
RFC 6749, October 2012. RFC 6749, October 2012.
[RFC6750] Jones, M. and D. Hardt, "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization [RFC6750] Jones, M. and D. Hardt, "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization
Framework: Bearer Token Usage", RFC 6750, October 2012. Framework: Bearer Token Usage", RFC 6750, October 2012.
8.2. Informative References [RFC7159] Bray, T., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
Interchange Format", RFC 7159, March 2014.
[OAuth.Registration.Metadata] 7.2. Informative References
[OAuth.Registration.Management]
Richer, J., Jones, M., Bradley, J., Machulak, M., and P. Richer, J., Jones, M., Bradley, J., Machulak, M., and P.
Hunt, "OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration Metadata", Hunt, "OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration Management
draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-metadata (work in progress), Protocol", draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-management (work in
February 2014. progress), May 2014.
Appendix A. Use Cases Appendix A. Use Cases
This appendix describes different ways that this specification can be This appendix describes different ways that this specification can be
utilized, including describing some of the choices that may need to utilized, including describing some of the choices that may need to
be made. Some of the choices are independent and can be used in be made. Some of the choices are independent and can be used in
combination, whereas some of the choices are interrelated. combination, whereas some of the choices are interrelated.
A.1. Open versus Protected Dynamic Client Registration A.1. Open versus Protected Dynamic Client Registration
skipping to change at page 22, line 37 skipping to change at page 30, line 11
specification, a common approach is for the developer to use a manual specification, a common approach is for the developer to use a manual
pre-registration portal at the authorization server that issues an pre-registration portal at the authorization server that issues an
initial access token to the developer. initial access token to the developer.
A.2. Registration Without or With Software Statements A.2. Registration Without or With Software Statements
A.2.1. Registration Without a Software Statement A.2.1. Registration Without a Software Statement
When a software statement is not used in the registration request, When a software statement is not used in the registration request,
the authorization server must be willing to use client metadata the authorization server must be willing to use client metadata
values without them being signed (and thereby attested to) by any values without them being digitally signed or MACed (and thereby
authority. (Note that this choice is independent of the Open versus attested to) by any authority. (Note that this choice is independent
Protected choice, and that an initial access token is another of the Open versus Protected choice, and that an initial access token
possible form of attestation.) is another possible form of attestation.)
A.2.2. Registration With a Software Statement A.2.2. Registration With a Software Statement
A software statement can be used in a registration request to provide A software statement can be used in a registration request to provide
attestation for a set of client metadata values for a piece of client attestation by an authority for a set of client metadata values.
software by an authority. This can be useful when the authorization This can be useful when the authorization server wants to restrict
server wants to restrict registration to client software attested to registration to client software attested to by a set of authorities
by a set of authorities or when it wants to know that multiple or when it wants to know that multiple registration requests refer to
registration requests refer to the same piece of client software. the same piece of client software.
A.3. Registration by the Client or the Developer A.3. Registration by the Client or Developer
A.3.1. Registration by the Client A.3.1. Registration by the Client
In some use cases, client software will dynamically register itself In some use cases, client software will dynamically register itself
with an authorization server to obtain a Client ID and other with an authorization server to obtain a client identifier and other
information needed to interact with the authorization server. In information needed to interact with the authorization server. In
this case, no Client ID for the authorization server is packaged with this case, no client identifier for the authorization server is
the client software. packaged with the client software.
A.3.2. Registration by the Developer A.3.2. Registration by the Developer
In some cases, the developer (or development software being used by In some cases, the developer (or development software being used by
the developer) will pre-register the client software with the the developer) will pre-register the client software with the
authorization server or a set of authorization servers. In this authorization server or a set of authorization servers. In this
case, the Client ID value(s) for the authorization server(s) can be case, the client identifier value(s) for the authorization server(s)
packaged with the client software. can be packaged with the client software.
A.4. Client ID per Client Instance or per Client Software A.4. Client ID per Client Instance or per Client Software
A.4.1. Client ID per Client Software Instance A.4.1. Client ID per Client Software Instance
In some cases, each deployed instance of a piece of client software In some cases, each deployed instance of a piece of client software
will dynamically register and obtain distinct Client ID values. This will dynamically register and obtain distinct client identifier
can be advantageous, for instance, if the code flow is being used, as values. This can be advantageous, for instance, if the code flow is
it also enables each client instance to have its own client secret. being used, as it also enables each client instance to have its own
This can be useful for native clients, which cannot maintain the client secret. This can be useful for native clients, which cannot
secrecy of a client secret value packaged with the software, but maintain the secrecy of a client secret value packaged with the
which may be able to maintain the secrecy of a per-instance client software, but which may be able to maintain the secrecy of a per-
secret. instance client secret.
A.4.2. Client ID Shared between all Instances of Client Software A.4.2. Client ID Shared Among All Instances of Client Software
In some cases, each deployed instance of a piece of client software In some cases, each deployed instance of a piece of client software
will share a common Client ID value. For instance, this is often the will share a common client identifier value. For instance, this is
case for native client using implicit flow, when no client secret is often the case for in-browser clients using the implicit flow, when
involved. Particular authorization servers might choose, for no client secret is involved. Particular authorization servers might
instance, to maintain a mapping between software statement values and choose, for instance, to maintain a mapping between software
Client ID values, and return the same Client ID value for all statement values and client identifier values, and return the same
registration requests for a particular piece of software. The client identifier value for all registration requests for a
circumstances under which an authorization server would do so, and particular piece of software. The circumstances under which an
the specific software statement characteristics required in this authorization server would do so, and the specific software statement
case, are beyond the scope of this specification. characteristics required in this case, are beyond the scope of this
specification.
A.5. Stateful or Stateless Registration A.5. Stateful or Stateless Registration
A.5.1. Stateful Client Registration A.5.1. Stateful Client Registration
In some cases, authorization servers will maintain state about In some cases, authorization servers will maintain state about
registered clients, typically indexing this state using the Client ID registered clients, typically indexing this state using the client
value. This state would typically include the client metadata values identifier value. This state would typically include the client
associated with the client registration, and possibly other state metadata values associated with the client registration, and possibly
specific to the authorization server's implementation. When stateful other state specific to the authorization server's implementation.
registration is used, operations to support retrieving and/or When stateful registration is used, operations to support retrieving
updating this state may be supported, as described in the and/or updating this state may be supported. One possible set of
operations upon stateful registrations is described in the
[OAuth.Registration.Management] specification. [OAuth.Registration.Management] specification.
A.5.2. Stateless Client Registration A.5.2. Stateless Client Registration
In some cases, authorization servers will be implemented in a manner In some cases, authorization servers will be implemented in a manner
the enables them to not maintain any local state about registered the enables them to not maintain any local state about registered
clients. One means of doing this is to encode all the registration clients. One means of doing this is to encode all the registration
state in the returned Client ID value, and possibly encrypting the state in the returned client identifier value, and possibly
state to the authorization server to maintain the confidentiality and encrypting the state to the authorization server to maintain the
integrity of the state. confidentiality and integrity of the state.
Appendix B. Acknowledgments Appendix B. Acknowledgments
The authors thank the OAuth Working Group, the User-Managed Access The authors thank the OAuth Working Group, the User-Managed Access
Working Group, and the OpenID Connect Working Group participants for Working Group, and the OpenID Connect Working Group participants for
their input to this document. In particular, the following their input to this document. In particular, the following
individuals have been instrumental in their review and contribution individuals have been instrumental in their review and contribution
to various versions of this document: Amanda Anganes, Derek Atkins, to various versions of this document: Amanda Anganes, Derek Atkins,
Tim Bray, Domenico Catalano, Donald Coffin, Vladimir Dzhuvinov, Tim Bray, Domenico Catalano, Donald Coffin, Vladimir Dzhuvinov,
George Fletcher, Thomas Hardjono, Phil Hunt, William Kim, Torsten George Fletcher, Thomas Hardjono, Phil Hunt, William Kim, Torsten
Lodderstedt, Eve Maler, Josh Mandel, Nov Matake, Tony Nadalin, Nat Lodderstedt, Eve Maler, Josh Mandel, Nov Matake, Tony Nadalin, Nat
Sakimura, Christian Scholz, and Hannes Tschofenig. Sakimura, Christian Scholz, and Hannes Tschofenig.
Appendix C. Document History Appendix C. Document History
[[ to be removed by the RFC editor before publication as an RFC ]] [[ to be removed by the RFC editor before publication as an RFC ]]
-17
o Merged draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-metadata back into this document.
o Removed "Core" from the document title.
o Explicitly state that all metadata members are optional.
o Clarified language around software statements for use in
registration context.
o Clarified that software statements need to be digitally signed or
MACed.
o Added a "jwks" metadata parameter to parallel the "jwks_uri"
parameter.
o Removed normative language from terminology.
o Expanded abstract and introduction.
o Addressed review comments from several working group members.
-16 -16
o Replaced references to draft-jones-oauth-dyn-reg-metadata and o Replaced references to draft-jones-oauth-dyn-reg-metadata and
draft-jones-oauth-dyn-reg-management with draft-jones-oauth-dyn-reg-management with
draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-metadata and draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-metadata and
draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-management. draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-management.
o Addressed review comments by Phil Hunt and Tony Nadalin. o Addressed review comments by Phil Hunt and Tony Nadalin.
-15 -15
skipping to change at page 25, line 17 skipping to change at page 33, line 13
draft-richer-oauth-dyn-reg-management-00. draft-richer-oauth-dyn-reg-management-00.
o Added the ability to use Software Statements. This built on work o Added the ability to use Software Statements. This built on work
first published as draft-hunt-oauth-software-statement-00 and first published as draft-hunt-oauth-software-statement-00 and
draft-hunt-oauth-client-association-00. draft-hunt-oauth-client-association-00.
o Created the IANA OAuth Registration Client Metadata registry for o Created the IANA OAuth Registration Client Metadata registry for
registering Client Metadata values. registering Client Metadata values.
o Defined Client Instance term and stated that multiple instances o Defined Client Instance term and stated that multiple instances
can use the same Client ID value under certain circumstances. can use the same client identifier value under certain
circumstances.
o Rewrote the introduction. o Rewrote the introduction.
o Rewrote the Use Cases appendix. o Rewrote the Use Cases appendix.
-14 -14
o Added software_id and software_version metadata fields o Added software_id and software_version metadata fields
o Added direct references to RFC6750 errors in read/update/delete o Added direct references to RFC6750 errors in read/update/delete
 End of changes. 121 change blocks. 
363 lines changed or deleted 735 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/