draft-ietf-oauth-reciprocal-00.txt   draft-ietf-oauth-reciprocal-01.txt 
OAuth Working Group D. Hardt OAuth Working Group D. Hardt
Internet-Draft Amazon Internet-Draft Amazon
Intended status: Standards Track May 26, 2018 Intended status: Standards Track October 19, 2018
Expires: November 27, 2018 Expires: April 22, 2019
Reciprocal OAuth Reciprocal OAuth
draft-ietf-oauth-reciprocal-00 draft-ietf-oauth-reciprocal-01
Abstract Abstract
There are times when a user has a pair of protected resources that There are times when a user has a pair of protected resources that
would like to request access to each other. While OAuth flows would like to request access to each other. While OAuth flows
typically enable the user to grant a client access to a protected typically enable the user to grant a client access to a protected
resource, granting the inverse access requires an additional flow. resource, granting the inverse access requires an additional flow.
Reciprocal OAuth enables a more seamless experience for the user to Reciprocal OAuth enables a more seamless experience for the user to
grant access to a pair of protected resources. grant access to a pair of protected resources.
skipping to change at page 1, line 35 skipping to change at page 1, line 35
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 27, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 22, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 38 skipping to change at page 2, line 38
1.1. Terminology 1.1. Terminology
In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
"SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
[RFC2119]. [RFC2119].
2. Reciprocal Scope Request 2. Reciprocal Scope Request
When party B is providing an authorization response per [RFC6749] When party B is providing an access token response per [RFC6749]
4.1.2, party B MAY include an additional query component in the 4.1.4, 4.2.1, 4.3.3 or 4.4.3, party B MAY include an additional query
redirection URI to indicate the scope requested in the reciprocal component in the redirection URI to indicate the scope requested in
grant. the reciprocal grant.
reciprocal OPTIONAL. The scope of party B's reciprocal access reciprocal OPTIONAL. The scope of party B's reciprocal access
request per [RFC6749] 3.3. request per [RFC6749] 3.3.
If party B does not provide a reciprocal parameter in the If party B does not provide a reciprocal parameter in the access
authorization response, the reciprocal scope will be a value token response, the reciprocal scope will be a value previously
previously preconfigured by party A and party B. preconfigured by party A and party B.
If an authorization code grant access token response per [RFC6749]
4.1.4, an example successful response:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/json;charset=UTF-8
Cache-Control: no-store
Pragma: no-cache
{
"access_token":"2YotnFZFEjr1zCsicMWpAA",
"token_type":"example",
"expires_in":3600,
"refresh_token":"tGzv3JOkF0XG5Qx2TlKWIA",
"reciprocal":"example_scope",
"example_parameter":"example_value"
}
If an authorization code grant access token response per [RFC6749]
4.2.2, an example successful response (with extra line breaks for
display purposes only):
HTTP/1.1 302 Found
Location: http://example.com/cb#
access_token=2YotnFZFEjr1zCsicMWpAA&
state=xyz&token_type=example&
expires_in=3600&
reciprocal="example_scope"
3. Reciprocal Authorization Flow 3. Reciprocal Authorization Flow
The reciprocal authorization flow starts after the client (party A) The reciprocal authorization flow starts after the client (party A)
has obtained an access token from the authorization server (party B) has obtained an access token from the authorization server (party B)
per [RFC6749] 4.1 Authorization Code Grant. per [RFC6749] 4.1 Authorization Code Grant.
3.1. User Consent 3.1. User Consent
Party A obtains consent from the user to grant Party B access to Party A obtains consent from the user to grant Party B access to
skipping to change at page 4, line 11 skipping to change at page 4, line 34
Party B MUST then verify the access token was granted to the client Party B MUST then verify the access token was granted to the client
identified by the client_id. identified by the client_id.
Party B MUST respond with either an HTTP 200 (OK) response if the Party B MUST respond with either an HTTP 200 (OK) response if the
request is valid, or an HTTP 400 "Bad Request" if it is not. request is valid, or an HTTP 400 "Bad Request" if it is not.
Party B then plays the role of the client to make an access token Party B then plays the role of the client to make an access token
request per [RFC6749] 4.1.3. request per [RFC6749] 4.1.3.
4. IANA Considerations 4. Authorization Update Flow
After the initial authorization, the user may add or remove scopes
available to the client at the authorization server. For example,
the user may grant additional scopes to the client using a voice
interface, or revoke some scopes. The authorization server can
update the client with the new authorization by sending a new
authorization code per 3.2.
5. IANA Considerations
TBD. TBD.
5. Acknowledgements 6. Acknowledgements
TBD. TBD.
6. Normative References 7. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC6749] Hardt, D., Ed., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework", [RFC6749] Hardt, D., Ed., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework",
RFC 6749, DOI 10.17487/RFC6749, October 2012, RFC 6749, DOI 10.17487/RFC6749, October 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6749>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6749>.
skipping to change at page 4, line 41 skipping to change at page 5, line 27
Framework: Bearer Token Usage", RFC 6750, Framework: Bearer Token Usage", RFC 6750,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6750, October 2012, DOI 10.17487/RFC6750, October 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6750>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6750>.
Appendix A. Document History Appendix A. Document History
A.1. draft-ietf-oauth-reciprical-00 A.1. draft-ietf-oauth-reciprical-00
o Initial version. o Initial version.
A.2. draft-ietf-oauth-reciprical-01
o changed reciprocal scope request to be in access token response
rather than authorization request
Author's Address Author's Address
Dick Hardt Dick Hardt
Amazon Amazon
Email: dick.hardt@gmail.com Email: dick.hardt@gmail.com
 End of changes. 9 change blocks. 
14 lines changed or deleted 56 lines changed or added

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