One document matched: draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-18.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD RFC 2629//EN"
"http://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/authoring/rfc2629.dtd" [
]>
<rfc category="std" docName="draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-18" ipr="trust200902">
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>
<?rfc toc='yes' ?>
<?rfc tocdepth='3' ?>
<?rfc symrefs='yes' ?>
<?rfc sortrefs='yes' ?>
<?rfc compact='yes' ?>
<?rfc subcompact='no' ?>
<?rfc strict='yes' ?>
<?rfc notedraftinprogress='yes' ?>
<front>
<title abbrev="OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Registration">OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client
Registration Protocol</title>
<author fullname="Justin Richer" initials="J" surname="Richer">
<organization>The MITRE Corporation</organization>
<address>
<email>jricher@mitre.org</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Michael B. Jones" initials="M.B." surname="Jones">
<organization abbrev="Microsoft">Microsoft</organization>
<address>
<email>mbj@microsoft.com</email>
<uri>http://self-issued.info/</uri>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="John Bradley" initials="J." surname="Bradley">
<organization abbrev="Ping Identity">Ping Identity</organization>
<address>
<email>ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Maciej Machulak" initials="M" surname="Machulak">
<organization>Newcastle University</organization>
<address>
<email>m.p.machulak@ncl.ac.uk</email>
<uri>http://ncl.ac.uk/</uri>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Phil Hunt" initials="P" surname="Hunt">
<organization>Oracle Corporation</organization>
<address>
<email>phil.hunt@yahoo.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<date day="3" month="July" year="2014"/>
<area>Security</area>
<workgroup>OAuth Working Group</workgroup>
<abstract>
<t>This specification defines mechanisms for dynamically registering
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.
</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<middle>
<section anchor="Introduction" title="Introduction">
<t>In order for an OAuth 2.0 client to utilize an OAuth 2.0
authorization server, the client needs specific information to interact
with the server, including an OAuth 2.0 client identifier to use at that server.
This specification describes how an OAuth 2.0 client can be dynamically
registered with an authorization server to obtain this information.</t>
<t>As part of the registration process, this specification also defines
a mechanism for the client to present the authorization server with a
set of metadata, such as a set of valid redirection URIs. This metadata
can either be communicated in a self-asserted fashion or as a set of
metadata called a software statement, which is digitally signed or MACed; in
the case of a software statement, the issuer is
vouching for the validity of the data about the client.</t>
<t>Traditionally, registration of a client with an authorization server
is performed manually. The mechanisms defined in this specification can
be used either for a client to dynamically register itself with
authorization servers or for a client developer to programmatically
register the client with authorization servers.</t>
<section anchor="Notation" title="Notational Conventions">
<t>The key words 'MUST', 'MUST NOT', 'REQUIRED', 'SHALL', 'SHALL NOT',
'SHOULD', 'SHOULD NOT', 'RECOMMENDED', 'MAY', and 'OPTIONAL' in this
document are to be interpreted as described in <xref
target="RFC2119"/>.</t>
<t>Unless otherwise noted, all the protocol parameter names and values
are case sensitive.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="Terminology" title="Terminology">
<t>
This specification uses the terms "access token", "authorization code",
"authorization endpoint", "authorization grant", "authorization server",
"client", "client identifier", "client secret",
"grant type", "protected resource", "redirection URI", "refresh token",
"resource owner", "resource server", "response type", and "token endpoint"
defined by <xref target="RFC6749">OAuth 2.0</xref>
and uses the term "Claim" defined by
<xref target="JWT">JSON Web Token (JWT)</xref>.
</t>
<t>This specification defines the following terms:</t>
<t><list style="hanging">
<t hangText="Client Developer">
<vspace/>
The person or organization that
builds a client software package and prepares it for
distribution.</t>
<t hangText="Client Instance">
<vspace/>
A deployed instance of a piece of
client software.</t>
<t hangText="Client Software">
<vspace/>
Software implementing an OAuth 2.0
client.</t>
<t hangText="Client Registration Endpoint">
<vspace/>
OAuth 2.0 endpoint
through which a client can be registered at an authorization
server. The means by which the URL for this endpoint is obtained
are out of scope for this specification.</t>
<t hangText="Initial Access Token">
<vspace/>
OAuth 2.0 access token
optionally issued by an authorization server
to a developer or client
and used to authorize
calls to the client registration endpoint. The type and format of
this token are likely service-specific and are out of scope for
this specification. The means by which the authorization server
issues this token as well as the means by which the registration
endpoint validates this token are out of scope for this
specification.
Use of an initial access token is required when
the authorization server limits the parties that can register a client.
</t>
<t hangText="Deployment Organization">
<vspace/>
An administrative security
domain under which, a software API is deployed and protected by an
OAuth 2.0 framework. In simple cloud deployments, the software API
publisher and the deployment organization may be the same. In
other scenarios, a software publisher may be working with many
different deployment organizations.</t>
<t hangText="Software API Deployment">
<vspace/>
A deployed instance of a
software API that is protected by OAuth 2.0 in a particular
deployment organization domain. For any particular software API,
there may be one or more deployments. A software API deployment
typically has an associated OAuth 2.0 authorization server as well
as a client registration endpoint. The means by which endpoints
are obtained are out of scope for this specification.</t>
<t hangText="Software API Publisher">
<vspace/>
The organization that defines
a particular web accessible API that may deployed in one or more
deployment environments. A publisher may be any commercial,
public, private, or open source organization that is responsible
for publishing and distributing software that may be protected via
OAuth 2.0. In some cases a software API publisher and a client
developer may be the same organization.</t>
<t hangText="Software Statement">
<vspace/>
Digitally signed or MACed JSON Web Token
(JWT) <xref target="JWT"/> that asserts metadata values about the
client software.
In some cases, a software statement will be issued directly by
the organization or developer that creates the client software.
In other cases, a software statement will be issued by
a third party organization for use by
the organization or developer that creates the client software.
In both cases, the trust relationship the authorization server
has with the issuer of the software statement is intended to be used as
an input to the evaluation of whether the registration request is accepted.
A software statement can be presented to an authorization server
as part of a client registration request.
</t>
</list></t>
</section>
<section anchor="ProtocolFlow" title="Protocol Flow">
<figure>
<preamble/>
<artwork><![CDATA[
+--------(A)- Initial Access Token (OPTIONAL)
|
| +----(B)- Software Statement (OPTIONAL)
| |
v v
+-----------+ +---------------+
| |--(C)- Client Registration Request -->| Client |
| Client or | | Registration |
| Developer |<-(D)- Client Information Response ---| Endpoint |
| | +---------------+
+-----------+
]]></artwork>
<postamble>Figure 1: Abstract Dynamic Client Registration
Flow</postamble>
</figure>
<t>The abstract OAuth 2.0 client dynamic registration flow illustrated
in Figure 1 describes the interaction between the client or developer
and the endpoint defined in this specification. This figure does not
demonstrate error conditions. This flow includes the following
steps:</t>
<t><list style="hanging">
<t hangText="(A)">Optionally, the client or developer is issued an
initial access token giving access to the client registration
endpoint. The method by which the initial access token is issued
to the client or developer is out of scope for this
specification.</t>
<t hangText="(B)">Optionally, the client or developer is issued a
software statement for use with the client registration endpoint.
The method by which the software statement is issued to the client
or developer is out of scope for this specification.</t>
<t hangText="(C)">The client or developer calls the client
registration endpoint with its desired registration metadata,
optionally including the initial access token from (A) if one is
required by the authorization server.</t>
<t hangText="(D)">The authorization server registers the client
and returns the client's registered metadata, a client identifier
that is unique at the server, a set of client credentials such as
a client secret if applicable for this client, and possibly other
values.</t>
</list></t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="ClientMetadata" title="Client Metadata">
<t>Clients have a set of metadata values associated with their client
identifier at an authorization server, such as the list of valid
redirection URIs or a display name.</t>
<t>The client metadata values are used in two ways:</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>as input values to registration requests, and</t>
<t>as output values in registration responses.</t>
</list></t>
<t>
The following client metadata fields are defined by this specification.
The implementation and use of all client metadata fields is OPTIONAL,
other than <spanx style="verb">redirect_uris</spanx>.
</t>
<t><list style="hanging">
<t hangText="redirect_uris">
<vspace/>
Array of redirection URIs for use in redirect-based flows such as the
authorization code and implicit flows.
As required by Section 2 of <xref target="RFC6749">OAuth 2.0</xref>,
clients using flows with redirection MUST register their redirection URI values.
Authorization servers MUST implement support for this metadata value.
</t>
<t hangText="token_endpoint_auth_method">
<vspace/>
The requested
authentication method for the token endpoint. Values defined by this
specification are: <list style="symbols">
<t><spanx style="verb">none</spanx>: The client is a public
client as defined in OAuth 2.0 and does not have a client
secret.</t>
<t><spanx style="verb">client_secret_post</spanx>: The client
uses the HTTP POST parameters defined in OAuth 2.0 section
2.3.1.</t>
<t><spanx style="verb">client_secret_basic</spanx>: the client
uses HTTP Basic defined in OAuth 2.0 section 2.3.1</t>
</list> Additional values can be defined via the IANA OAuth Token
Endpoint Authentication Methods Registry established in <xref
target="TEAMRegistry"/>. Absolute URIs can also be used as values
for this parameter without being registered. If unspecified or
omitted, the default is <spanx style="verb">client_secret_basic</spanx>,
denoting HTTP Basic Authentication Scheme as specified in Section
2.3.1 of OAuth 2.0.</t>
<t hangText="grant_types">
<vspace/>
Array of OAuth 2.0 grant types that the
client may use. These grant types are defined as follows: <list
style="symbols">
<t><spanx style="verb">authorization_code</spanx>: The
Authorization Code Grant described in OAuth 2.0 Section 4.1</t>
<t><spanx style="verb">implicit</spanx>: The Implicit Grant
described in OAuth 2.0 Section 4.2</t>
<t><spanx style="verb">password</spanx>: The Resource Owner
Password Credentials Grant described in OAuth 2.0 Section
4.3</t>
<t><spanx style="verb">client_credentials</spanx>: The Client
Credentials Grant described in OAuth 2.0 Section 4.4</t>
<t><spanx style="verb">refresh_token</spanx>: The Refresh Token
Grant described in OAuth 2.0 Section 6.</t>
<t><spanx style="verb">urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:jwt-bearer</spanx>:
The JWT Bearer Grant defined in <xref target="OAuth.JWT">OAuth
JWT Bearer Token Profiles</xref>.</t>
<t><spanx style="verb">urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:saml2-bearer</spanx>:
The SAML 2 Bearer Grant defined in <xref
target="OAuth.SAML2">OAuth SAML 2 Bearer Token
Profiles</xref>.</t>
</list> Authorization Servers MAY allow for other values as
defined in 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
in the grant type, the value of this parameter MUST be the same as
the value of the <spanx style="verb">grant_type</spanx> parameter
passed to the token endpoint defined in the extension.
If omitted, the default is that the client will use only the
<spanx style="verb">authorization_code</spanx> Grant Type.
</t>
<t hangText="application_type">
<vspace/>
OPTIONAL.
Kind of the application.
The default, if omitted, is
<spanx style="verb">web</spanx>. The defined values are
<spanx style="verb">native</spanx>
or <spanx style="verb">web</spanx>.
</t>
<t hangText="response_types">
<vspace/>
Array of the OAuth 2.0 response types
that the client may use. These response types are defined as
follows: <list style="symbols">
<t><spanx style="verb">code</spanx>: The Authorization Code
response described in OAuth 2.0 Section 4.1.</t>
<t><spanx style="verb">token</spanx>: The Implicit response
described in OAuth 2.0 Section 4.2.</t>
</list> Authorization servers MAY allow for other values as
defined in response type extensions to OAuth 2.0. The extension
process is 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 same as the value of the <spanx style="verb">response_type</spanx>
parameter passed to the authorization endpoint defined in the
extension.
If omitted, the default is that the client will use only the
<spanx style="verb">code</spanx> response type.
</t>
<t hangText="client_name">
<vspace/>
Human-readable name of the client to be
presented to the user during authorization. If omitted, the
authorization server MAY display the raw <spanx style="verb">client_id</spanx>
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 <xref target="HumanReadableClientMetadata"/>.</t>
<t hangText="client_uri">
<vspace/>
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 <xref target="HumanReadableClientMetadata"/>.</t>
<t hangText="logo_uri">
<vspace/>
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
<xref target="HumanReadableClientMetadata"/>.</t>
<t hangText="scope">
<vspace/>
Space separated list of scope values (as
described in Section 3.3 of <xref target="RFC6749">OAuth 2.0</xref>)
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.</t>
<t hangText="contacts">
<vspace/>
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.</t>
<t hangText="tos_uri">
<vspace/>
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
<xref target="HumanReadableClientMetadata"/>.</t>
<t hangText="policy_uri">
<vspace/>
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 <xref
target="HumanReadableClientMetadata"/>.</t>
<t hangText="jwks_uri">
<vspace/>
URL of the client's JSON Web Key Set
<xref target="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.
</t>
<t hangText="jwks">
<vspace/>
JSON Web Key Set <xref target="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 <spanx style="verb">jwks_uri</spanx> 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 <spanx style="verb">jwks_uri</spanx> and <spanx style="verb">jwks</spanx>
parameters MUST NOT be used together.
</t>
<t hangText="software_id">
<vspace/>
Identifier for the software that comprises
a client. Unlike <spanx style="verb">client_id</spanx>, which is
issued by the authorization server and may vary between
instances, the <spanx style="verb">software_id</spanx> is asserted
by the client software on behalf of the software developer
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.</t>
<t hangText="software_version">
<vspace/>
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 <spanx style="verb">software_version</spanx> SHOULD change on
any update to the client software.</t>
</list></t>
<t>Extensions and profiles of this specification MAY expand this list.
The
authorization server MUST ignore any client metadata values sent by the
client that it does not understand.</t>
<t>Client metadata values can either be communicated directly in the
body of a registration request, as described in <xref
target="RegistrationRequest"/>, or included as claims in a software
statement, as described in <xref target="SoftwareStatement"/>, or a
mixture of both. If the same client metadata name is present in both
locations and the software statement is trusted by the authorization
server, the value of a claim in the software statement MUST take
precedence.</t>
<section anchor="GrantTypesAndResponseTypes"
title="Relationship between Grant Types and Response Types">
<t>The <spanx style="verb">grant_types</spanx> and <spanx
style="verb">response_types</spanx> values described above are
partially orthogonal, as they refer to arguments passed to different
endpoints in the OAuth protocol. However, they are related in that the
<spanx style="verb">grant_types</spanx> available to a client
influence the <spanx style="verb">response_types</spanx> that the
client is allowed to use, and vice versa. For instance, a <spanx
style="verb">grant_types</spanx> value that includes <spanx
style="verb">authorization_code</spanx> implies a <spanx style="verb">response_types</spanx>
value that includes <spanx style="verb">code</spanx>, as both values
are defined as part of the OAuth 2.0 authorization code grant. As
such, a server supporting these fields SHOULD take steps to ensure
that a client cannot register itself into an inconsistent state, for
example by returning an <spanx style="verb">invalid_client_metadata</spanx>
error response to an inconsistent registration request.</t>
<t>The correlation between the two fields is listed in the table
below.</t>
<texttable>
<ttcol>grant_types value includes:</ttcol>
<ttcol>response_types value includes:</ttcol>
<c>authorization_code</c>
<c>code</c>
<c>implicit</c>
<c>token</c>
<c>password</c>
<c>(none)</c>
<c>client_credentials</c>
<c>(none)</c>
<c>refresh_token</c>
<c>(none)</c>
<c>urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:jwt-bearer</c>
<c>(none)</c>
<c>urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:saml2-bearer</c>
<c>(none)</c>
</texttable>
<t>Extensions and profiles of this document that introduce new values
to either the <spanx style="verb">grant_types</spanx> or <spanx
style="verb">response_types</spanx> parameter MUST document all
correspondences between these two parameter types.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="HumanReadableClientMetadata"
title="Human Readable Client Metadata">
<t>Human-readable client metadata values and client metadata values
that reference human-readable values MAY be represented in multiple
languages and scripts. For example, the values of fields such as
<spanx style="verb">client_name</spanx>, <spanx style="verb">tos_uri</spanx>,
<spanx style="verb">policy_uri</spanx>, <spanx style="verb">logo_uri</spanx>,
and <spanx style="verb">client_uri</spanx> might have multiple
locale-specific values in some client registrations to facilitate use
in different locations.</t>
<t>To specify the languages and scripts, <xref
target="RFC5646">BCP47</xref> language tags are added to client
metadata member names, delimited by a # character. Since <xref
target="RFC7159">JSON</xref> member names are case sensitive, it is
RECOMMENDED that language tag values used in Claim Names be spelled
using the character case with which they are registered in the <xref
target="IANA.Language">IANA Language Subtag Registry</xref>. 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 <spanx style="verb">fr</spanx> might be sufficient in
many contexts, rather than <spanx style="verb">fr-CA</spanx> or <spanx
style="verb">fr-FR</spanx>.</t>
<t>For example, a client could represent its name in English as <spanx
style="verb">"client_name#en": "My Client"</spanx> and its name in
Japanese as <spanx style="verb">"client_name#ja-Jpan-JP": "\u30AF\u30E9\u30A4\u30A2\u30F3\u30C8\u540D"</spanx>
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.</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>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 <spanx style="verb">#</spanx> 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, <spanx style="verb">var j = JSON.parse(json);</spanx>,
then the member <spanx style="verb">client_name#en-us</spanx> can be
accessed using the JavaScript syntax <spanx style="verb">j["client_name#en-us"]</spanx>.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="SoftwareStatement" title="Software Statement">
<t>A software statement is a JSON Web Token (JWT) <xref target="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
<xref target="ClientMetadata"/>.
When presented to the
authorization server as part of a client registration request,
the software statement MUST be digitally signed or MACed using <xref
target="JWS">JWS</xref> and MUST contain an <spanx style="verb">iss</spanx>
(issuer) claim denoting the party attesting to the claims in the
software statement. It is RECOMMENDED that software statements be
digitally signed using the <spanx style="verb">RS256</spanx> signature algorithm,
although particular applications MAY specify the use of different algorithms.</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>The criteria by which authorization servers determine whether to
trust and utilize the information in a software statement are beyond
the scope of this specification.</t>
<t>In some cases, authorization servers MAY choose to accept a
software statement value directly as a client identifier in an authorization
request, without a prior dynamic client registration having been
performed. The circumstances under which an authorization server would
do so, and the specific software statement characteristics required in
this case, are beyond the scope of this specification.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="RegistrationEndpoint"
title="Client Registration Endpoint">
<t>The client registration endpoint is an OAuth 2.0 endpoint defined in
this document that is designed to allow a client to be registered with
the authorization server. The client registration endpoint MUST accept
HTTP POST messages with request parameters encoded in the entity body
using the <spanx style="verb">application/json</spanx> format. The
client registration endpoint MUST be protected by a transport-layer
security mechanism, and the server MUST support TLS 1.2 <xref
target="RFC5246">RFC 5246</xref> and/or TLS 1.0 <xref target="RFC2246"/>
and MAY support additional transport-layer mechanisms meeting its
security requirements. When using TLS, the client MUST perform a TLS/SSL
server certificate check, per <xref target="RFC6125">RFC
6125</xref>.</t>
<t>The client registration endpoint MAY be an OAuth 2.0 protected
resource and accept an initial access token in the form of an <xref
target="RFC6749">OAuth 2.0</xref> access token to limit registration to
only previously authorized parties. The method by which the initial
access token is obtained by the client or developer is generally
out-of-band and is out of scope for this specification. The method by
which the initial access token is verified and validated by the client
registration endpoint is out of scope for this specification.</t>
<t>To support open registration and facilitate wider interoperability,
the client registration endpoint SHOULD allow registration
requests with no authorization (which is to say, with no
initial access token in the request). These requests MAY be rate-limited or
otherwise limited to prevent a denial-of-service attack on the client
registration endpoint.</t>
<section anchor="RegistrationRequest"
title="Client Registration Request">
<t>This operation registers a client with the authorization server.
The authorization server assigns this client a unique client
identifier, optionally assigns a client secret, and associates the
metadata given in the request with the issued client identifier. The
request includes any client metadata parameters being specified for
the client during the registration. The authorization server MAY
provision default values for any items omitted in the client
metadata.</t>
<t>To register, the client or developer sends an HTTP POST to the
client registration endpoint with a content type of <spanx
style="verb">application/json</spanx>. The HTTP Entity Payload is a
<xref target="RFC7159">JSON</xref> document consisting of a JSON
object and all requested client metadata values as top-level members
of that JSON object.</t>
<t>Client metadata values may also be provided in a software
statement, as described in <xref target="SoftwareStatement"/>.
Software statements are included in the requesting JSON object using this
member: <list style="hanging">
<t hangText="software_statement">
<vspace/>
A software statement containing
client metadata values about the client software as claims.</t>
</list></t>
<t>For example, if the server supports open registration (with no
initial access token), the client could send the following
registration request to the client registration endpoint:</t>
<figure>
<preamble>The following is a non-normative example request not using
an initial access token
(with line wraps within values for display purposes only):</preamble>
<artwork><![CDATA[
POST /register HTTP/1.1
Content-Type: application/json
Accept: application/json
Host: server.example.com
{
"redirect_uris":[
"https://client.example.org/callback",
"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",
"logo_uri":"https://client.example.org/logo.png",
"jwks_uri":"https://client.example.org/my_public_keys.jwks",
"example_extension_parameter": "example_value"
}
]]></artwork>
</figure>
<t>Alternatively, if the server supports authorized registration, the
developer or the client will be provisioned with an initial access
token. (The method by which the initial access token is obtained is out
of scope for this specification.) The developer or client sends the
following authorized registration request to the client registration
endpoint. Note that the initial access token sent in this example as
an OAuth 2.0 Bearer Token <xref target="RFC6750"/>, but any OAuth 2.0
token type could be used by an authorization server.</t>
<figure>
<preamble>The following is a non-normative example request using an
initial access token
(with line wraps within values for display purposes only):</preamble>
<artwork><![CDATA[
POST /register HTTP/1.1
Content-Type: application/json
Accept: application/json
Authorization: Bearer ey23f2.adfj230.af32-developer321
Host: server.example.com
{
"redirect_uris":["https://client.example.org/callback",
"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",
"policy_uri":"https://client.example.org/policy.html",
"jwks":{"keys":[{...omitted for brevity...}]},
"example_extension_parameter": "example_value"
}
]]></artwork>
</figure>
<figure>
<preamble>In the following example, some registration parameters are
conveyed as claims in a software statement, while some values
specific to the client instance are conveyed as regular parameters
(with line wraps within values for display purposes only):</preamble>
<artwork><![CDATA[
POST /register HTTP/1.1
Content-Type: application/json
Accept: application/json
Host: server.example.com
{
"redirect_uris":[
"https://client.example.org/callback",
"https://client.example.org/callback2"
],
"software_statement":"eyJhbGciOiJFUzI1NiJ9.
eyJpc3Mi[...omitted for brevity...].
J9l-ZhwP[...omitted for brevity...]",
"scope":"read write",
"example_extension_parameter":"example_value"
}
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</section>
<section anchor="RegistrationResponse"
title="Client Registration Response">
<t>Upon successful registration, the authorization server returns a
client identifier for the client. The server responds with an HTTP 201
Created code and a body of type <spanx style="verb">application/json</spanx>
with content as described in <xref target="ClientInfoResponse"/>.</t>
<t>Upon an unsuccessful registration, the authorization server
responds with an error, as described in <xref
target="ClientRegistrationError"/>.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="Responses" title="Responses">
<t>The following responses are sent in response to registration
requests.</t>
<section anchor="ClientInfoResponse" title="Client Information Response">
<t>The response contains the client identifier as well as the client
secret, if the client is a confidential client. The response MAY
contain additional fields as specified by extensions to this
specification.</t>
<t><list style="hanging">
<t hangText="client_id">
<vspace/>
REQUIRED. OAuth 2.0 client identifier. It
SHOULD NOT be currently valid for any other registered client,
though an authorization server MAY issue the same client
identifier to multiple instances of a registered client,
at its discretion.</t>
<t hangText="client_secret">
<vspace/>
OPTIONAL. OAuth 2.0 client secret. If
issued, this MUST be unique for each <spanx style="verb">client_id</spanx>.
This value is used by confidential clients to authenticate to the
token endpoint as described in <xref target="RFC6749">OAuth
2.0</xref> Section 2.3.1.</t>
<t hangText="client_id_issued_at">
<vspace/>
OPTIONAL. Time at which the
client identifier was issued. The time is represented as the
number of seconds from 1970-01-01T0:0:0Z as measured in UTC until
the date/time.</t>
<t hangText="client_secret_expires_at">
<vspace/>
REQUIRED if <spanx style="verb">client_secret</spanx> is issued.
Time at which the
client secret will expire or 0 if it
will not expire. The time is represented as the number of seconds
from 1970-01-01T0:0:0Z as measured in UTC until the date/time.</t>
</list></t>
<t>Additionally, the authorization server MUST return all registered
metadata about this client, including any fields provisioned by the
authorization server itself. The authorization server MAY reject or
replace any of the client's requested metadata values submitted during
the registration or update requests and substitute them with suitable
values.</t>
<t>The response is an <spanx style="verb">application/json</spanx>
document with all parameters as top-level members of a <xref
target="RFC7159">JSON object</xref>.</t>
<t>If a software statement was used as part of the registration, its
value MUST be returned in the response along with other metadata.
Client metadata elements used from the software statement MUST also be
returned directly as top-level client metadata values in the
registration response (possibly with different values, since the
values requested and the values used may differ).</t>
<figure>
<preamble>Following is a non-normative example response:</preamble>
<artwork><![CDATA[
HTTP/1.1 201 Created
Content-Type: application/json
Cache-Control: no-store
Pragma: no-cache
{
"client_id":"s6BhdRkqt3",
"client_secret": "cf136dc3c1fc93f31185e5885805d",
"client_id_issued_at":2893256800,
"client_secret_expires_at":2893276800,
"redirect_uris":[
"https://client.example.org/callback",
"https://client.example.org/callback2"],
"grant_types": ["authorization_code", "refresh_token"],
"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"
}
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</section>
<section anchor="ClientRegistrationError"
title="Client Registration Error Response">
<t>When an OAuth 2.0 error condition occurs, such as the client
presenting an invalid initial access token, the authorization server
returns an error response appropriate to the OAuth 2.0 token type.</t>
<t>When a registration error condition occurs, the authorization
server returns an HTTP 400 status code (unless otherwise specified)
with content type <spanx style="verb">application/json</spanx>
consisting of a <xref target="RFC7159">JSON object</xref> describing
the error in the response body.</t>
<t>
Two members are defined for inclusion in the JSON object:
</t>
<t>
<list style="hanging">
<t hangText="error">
<vspace/>
REQUIRED. Single ASCII error code string.</t>
<t hangText="error_description">
<vspace/>
OPTIONAL. Human-readable ASCII text
description of the error used for debugging.</t>
</list>
Other members MAY also be included, and if not understood, MUST be ignored.
</t>
<t>This specification defines the following error codes:</t>
<t><list style="hanging">
<t hangText="invalid_redirect_uri">
<vspace/>
The value of one or more redirection URIs is invalid.</t>
<t hangText="invalid_client_metadata">
<vspace/>
The value of one of the
client metadata fields is invalid and the server has rejected this
request. Note that an authorization server MAY choose to
substitute a valid value for any requested parameter of a client's
metadata.</t>
<t hangText="invalid_software_statement">
<vspace/>
The software statement
presented is invalid.</t>
<t hangText="unapproved_software_statement">
<vspace/>
The software statement
presented is not approved for use by this authorization
server.</t>
</list></t>
<figure>
<preamble>Following is a non-normative example of an error response
resulting from a redirection URI that has been blacklisted by the
authorization server
(with line wraps within values for display purposes only):</preamble>
<artwork><![CDATA[
HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
Content-Type: application/json
Cache-Control: no-store
Pragma: no-cache
{
"error": "invalid_redirect_uri",
"error_description": "The redirection URI
http://sketchy.example.com is not allowed by this server."
}
]]></artwork>
</figure>
<figure>
<preamble>Following is a non-normative example of an error response
resulting from an inconsistent combination of <spanx style="verb">response_types</spanx>
and <spanx style="verb">grant_types</spanx> values
(with line wraps within values for display purposes only):</preamble>
<artwork><![CDATA[
HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
Content-Type: application/json
Cache-Control: no-store
Pragma: no-cache
{
"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."
}
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations">
<section anchor="MetadataRegistry"
title="OAuth Dynamic Registration Client Metadata Registry">
<t>This specification establishes the OAuth Dynamic Registration Client
Metadata registry.</t>
<t>OAuth registration client metadata values are registered with a
Specification Required (<xref target="RFC5226"/>) after 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 allow for the
allocation of values prior to publication, the Designated Expert(s)
may approve registration once they are satisfied that such a
specification will be published.</t>
<t>Registration requests must be sent to the oauth-ext-review@ietf.org
mailing list for review and comment, with an appropriate subject
(e.g., "Request to register OAuth Dynamic Registration Client Metadata name:
example").</t>
<t>Within the review period, the Designated Expert(s) will either
approve or deny the registration request, communicating this decision
to the review list and IANA. Denials should include an explanation
and, if applicable, suggestions as to how to make the request
successful.</t>
<t>IANA must only accept registry updates from the Designated
Expert(s) and should direct all requests for registration to the
review mailing list.</t>
<section anchor="MetadataTemplate" title="Registration Template">
<t><list style="hanging">
<t hangText="Client Metadata Name:">
<vspace/>
The name requested (e.g.,
"example"). This name is case sensitive. Names that match other
registered names in a case insensitive manner SHOULD NOT be
accepted.</t>
<t hangText="Client Metadata Description:">
<vspace/>
Brief
description of the metadata value (e.g., "Example
description").</t>
<t hangText="Change controller:">
<vspace/>
For Standards Track RFCs, state
"IETF". For others, give the name of the responsible party.
Other details (e.g., postal address, email address, home page
URI) may also be included.</t>
<t hangText="Specification document(s):">
<vspace/>
Reference to the
document(s) that specify the token endpoint authorization
method, preferably including a URI that can be used to retrieve
a copy of the document(s). An indication of the relevant
sections may also be included but is not required.</t>
</list></t>
</section>
<section anchor="MetadataContents" title="Initial Registry Contents">
<t>The initial contents of the OAuth Dynamic Registration Client Metadata
registry are:</t>
<t><?rfc subcompact="yes"?> <list style="symbols">
<t>Client Metadata Name: <spanx style="verb">redirect_uris</spanx></t>
<t>Client Metadata Description: Array of redirection URIs for use
in redirect-based flows</t>
<t>Change controller: IESG</t>
<t>Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]</t>
</list></t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Client Metadata Name: <spanx style="verb">token_endpoint_auth_method</spanx></t>
<t>Client Metadata Description: Requested authentication method
for the token endpoint</t>
<t>Change controller: IESG</t>
<t>Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]</t>
</list></t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Client Metadata Name: <spanx style="verb">grant_types</spanx></t>
<t>Client Metadata Description: Array of OAuth 2.0 grant types
that the client may use</t>
<t>Change controller: IESG</t>
<t>Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]</t>
</list></t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Client Metadata Name: <spanx style="verb">response_types</spanx></t>
<t>Client Metadata Description: Array of the OAuth 2.0 response
types that the client may use</t>
<t>Change controller: IESG</t>
<t>Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]</t>
</list></t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Client Metadata Name: <spanx style="verb">client_name</spanx></t>
<t>Client Metadata Description: Human-readable name of the
client to be presented to the user</t>
<t>Change Controller: IESG</t>
<t>Specification Document(s): [[ this document ]]</t>
</list></t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Client Metadata Name: <spanx style="verb">client_uri</spanx></t>
<t>Client Metadata Description: URL of a Web page providing
information about the client</t>
<t>Change Controller: IESG</t>
<t>Specification Document(s): [[ this document ]]</t>
</list></t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Client Metadata Name: <spanx style="verb">logo_uri</spanx></t>
<t>Client Metadata Description: URL that references a logo for
the client</t>
<t>Change Controller: IESG</t>
<t>Specification Document(s): [[ this document ]]</t>
</list></t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Client Metadata Name: <spanx style="verb">scope</spanx></t>
<t>Client Metadata Description: Space separated list of scope
values</t>
<t>Change Controller: IESG</t>
<t>Specification Document(s): [[ this document ]]</t>
</list></t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Client Metadata Name: <spanx style="verb">contacts</spanx></t>
<t>Client Metadata Description: Array of strings representing ways to contact
people responsible for this client, typically email addresses</t>
<t>Change Controller: IESG</t>
<t>Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]</t>
</list></t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Client Metadata Name: <spanx style="verb">tos_uri</spanx></t>
<t>Client Metadata Description: URL that points to a
human-readable Terms of Service document for the client</t>
<t>Change Controller: IESG</t>
<t>Specification Document(s): [[ this document ]]</t>
</list></t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Client Metadata Name: <spanx style="verb">policy_uri</spanx></t>
<t>Client Metadata Description: URL that points to a
human-readable Policy document for the client</t>
<t>Change Controller: IESG</t>
<t>Specification Document(s): [[ this document ]]</t>
</list></t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Client Metadata Name: <spanx style="verb">jwks_uri</spanx></t>
<t>Client Metadata Description: URL for the client's <xref
target="JWK">JSON Web Key Set</xref> document representing the
client's public keys</t>
<t>Change Controller: IESG</t>
<t>Specification Document(s): [[ this document ]]</t>
</list><list style="symbols">
<t>Client Metadata Name: <spanx style="verb">jwks</spanx></t>
<t>Client Metadata Description: The client's <xref
target="JWK">JSON Web Key Set</xref> document representing the
client's public keys</t>
<t>Change Controller: IESG</t>
<t>Specification Document(s): [[ this document ]]</t>
</list></t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Client Metadata Name: <spanx style="verb">software_id</spanx></t>
<t>Client Metadata Description: Identifier for the software that
comprises a client</t>
<t>Change Controller: IESG</t>
<t>Specification Document(s): [[ this document ]]</t>
</list></t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Client Metadata Name: <spanx style="verb">software_version</spanx></t>
<t>Client Metadata Description: Version identifier for the
software that comprises a client</t>
<t>Change Controller: IESG</t>
<t>Specification Document(s): [[ this document ]]</t>
</list></t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Client Metadata Name: <spanx style="verb">client_id</spanx></t>
<t>Client Metadata Description: Client identifier</t>
<t>Change Controller: IESG</t>
<t>Specification Document(s): [[ this document ]]</t>
</list></t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Client Metadata Name: <spanx style="verb">client_secret</spanx></t>
<t>Client Metadata Description: Client secret</t>
<t>Change Controller: IESG</t>
<t>Specification Document(s): [[ this document ]]</t>
</list></t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Client Metadata Name: <spanx style="verb">client_id_issued_at</spanx></t>
<t>Client Metadata Description: Time at which the
client identifier was issued</t>
<t>Change Controller: IESG</t>
<t>Specification Document(s): [[ this document ]]</t>
</list></t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Client Metadata Name: <spanx style="verb">client_secret_expires_at</spanx></t>
<t>Client Metadata Description: Time at which the
client secret will expire</t>
<t>Change Controller: IESG</t>
<t>Specification Document(s): [[ this document ]]</t>
</list></t>
</section>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
</section>
<section anchor="TEAMRegistry"
title="OAuth Token Endpoint Authentication Methods Registry">
<t>This specification establishes the OAuth Token Endpoint
Authentication Methods registry.</t>
<t>Additional values for use as <spanx style="verb">token_endpoint_auth_method</spanx>
metadata values are registered with a Specification Required (<xref
target="RFC5226"/>) after 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 allow for the allocation of values
prior to publication, the Designated Expert(s) may approve
registration once they are satisfied that such a specification will be
published.</t>
<t>Registration requests must be sent to the oauth-ext-review@ietf.org
mailing list for review and comment, with an appropriate subject
(e.g., "Request to register token_endpoint_auth_method value:
example").</t>
<t>Within the review period, the Designated Expert(s) will either
approve or deny the registration request, communicating this decision
to the review list and IANA. Denials should include an explanation
and, if applicable, suggestions as to how to make the request
successful.</t>
<t>IANA must only accept registry updates from the Designated
Expert(s) and should direct all requests for registration to the
review mailing list.</t>
<section anchor="TEAMTemplate" title="Registration Template">
<t><list style="hanging">
<t hangText="Token Endpoint Authorization Method Name:">
<vspace/>
The name
requested (e.g., "example"). This name is case sensitive. Names
that match other registered names in a case insensitive manner
SHOULD NOT be accepted.</t>
<t hangText="Change controller:">
<vspace/>
For Standards Track RFCs, state
"IETF". For others, give the name of the responsible party.
Other details (e.g., postal address, email address, home page
URI) may also be included.</t>
<t hangText="Specification document(s):">
<vspace/>
Reference to the
document(s) that specify the token endpoint authorization
method, preferably including a URI that can be used to retrieve
a copy of the document(s). An indication of the relevant
sections may also be included but is not required.</t>
</list></t>
</section>
<section anchor="TEAMContents" title="Initial Registry Contents">
<t>The initial contents of the OAuth Token Endpoint Authentication
Methods registry are:</t>
<t><?rfc subcompact="yes"?> <list style="symbols">
<t>Token Endpoint Authorization Method Name: <spanx
style="verb">none</spanx></t>
<t>Change controller: IESG</t>
<t>Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]</t>
</list></t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Token Endpoint Authorization Method Name: <spanx
style="verb">client_secret_post</spanx></t>
<t>Change controller: IESG</t>
<t>Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]</t>
</list></t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Token Endpoint Authorization Method Name: <spanx
style="verb">client_secret_basic</spanx></t>
<t>Change controller: IESG</t>
<t>Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]</t>
</list></t>
</section>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="Security" title="Security Considerations">
<t>Since requests to the client registration endpoint result in the
transmission of clear-text credentials (in the HTTP request and
response), the authorization server MUST require the use of a
transport-layer security mechanism when sending requests to the
registration endpoint. The server MUST support TLS 1.2 <xref
target="RFC5246">RFC 5246</xref> and/or TLS 1.0 <xref target="RFC2246"/>
and MAY support additional transport-layer mechanisms meeting its
security requirements. When using TLS, the client MUST perform a TLS/SSL
server certificate check, per <xref target="RFC6125">RFC
6125</xref>.</t>
<t>For clients that use redirect-based grant types such as <spanx
style="verb">authorization_code</spanx> and <spanx style="verb">implicit</spanx>,
authorization servers MUST require clients to register their <spanx
style="verb">redirect_uri</spanx> values. This
can help mitigate attacks where rogue actors inject and impersonate a
validly registered client and intercept its authorization code or tokens
through an invalid redirection URI or open redirector.</t>
<t>Public clients MAY register with an authorization server using this
protocol, if the authorization server's policy allows them. Public
clients use a <spanx style="verb">none</spanx> value for the <spanx
style="verb">token_endpoint_auth_method</spanx> metadata field and are
generally used with the <spanx style="verb">implicit</spanx> grant type.
Often these clients will be short-lived in-browser applications
requesting access to a user's resources and access is tied to a user's
active session at the authorization server. Since 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 is loaded.
Additionally, such clients may not have ample opportunity to unregister
themselves using the delete action before the browser closes. To avoid
the resulting proliferation of dead client identifiers, an authorization
server MAY decide to expire registrations for existing clients meeting
certain criteria after a period of time has elapsed.</t>
<t>Since different OAuth 2.0 grant types have different security and
usage parameters, an authorization server MAY require separate
registrations for a piece of software to support multiple grant types.
For instance, an authorization server might require that all clients
using the <spanx style="verb">authorization_code</spanx> grant type make
use of a client secret for the <spanx style="verb">token_endpoint_auth_method</spanx>,
but any clients using the <spanx style="verb">implicit</spanx> grant
type do not use any authentication at the token endpoint. In such a
situation, a server MAY disallow clients from registering for both the
<spanx style="verb">authorization_code</spanx> and <spanx style="verb">implicit</spanx>
grant types simultaneously. Similarly, the <spanx style="verb">authorization_code</spanx>
grant type is used to represent access on behalf of an end user, but the
<spanx style="verb">client_credentials</spanx> grant type represents
access on behalf of the client itself. For security reasons, an
authorization server could require that different scopes be used for
these different use cases, and as a consequence it MAY disallow these
two grant types from being registered together by the same client. In
all of these cases, the authorization server would respond with an
<spanx style="verb">invalid_client_metadata</spanx> error response.</t>
<t>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 redirection URIs.
An authorization server could also refuse registration requests from a known
software identifier that is requesting different redirection 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.
</t>
<t>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. <spanx
style="verb">logo_uri</spanx>, <spanx style="verb">tos_uri</spanx>,
<spanx style="verb">client_uri</spanx>, and <spanx style="verb">policy_uri</spanx>).
For instance, a rogue client could specify a registration request with a
reference to a drive-by download in the <spanx style="verb">policy_uri</spanx>.
The authorization server SHOULD check to see if the <spanx style="verb">logo_uri</spanx>,
<spanx style="verb">tos_uri</spanx>, <spanx style="verb">client_uri</spanx>,
and <spanx style="verb">policy_uri</spanx> have the same host and scheme
as the those defined in the array of <spanx style="verb">redirect_uris</spanx>
and that all of these URIs resolve to valid web pages.</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>
If an authorization server receives a registration request for a client
that uses the same <spanx style="verb">software_id</spanx> and
<spanx style="verb">software_version</spanx> values as another client,
the server should treat the new registration as being suspect.
It is possible that the new client is trying to impersonate the existing client.
</t>
<t>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 redirection 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.</t>
</section>
</middle>
<back>
<references title="Normative References">
<?rfc include='http://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml'?>
<?rfc include='http://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2246.xml'?>
<?rfc include='http://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5226.xml'?>
<?rfc include='http://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5246.xml'?>
<?rfc include='http://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5646.xml'?>
<?rfc include='http://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6125.xml'?>
<?rfc include='http://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6749.xml'?>
<?rfc include='http://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6750.xml'?>
<?rfc include='http://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7159.xml'?>
<reference anchor="JWT">
<front>
<title>JSON Web Token (JWT)</title>
<author fullname="Michael B. Jones" initials="M.B." surname="Jones">
<organization>Microsoft</organization>
<address>
<email>mbj@microsoft.com</email>
<uri>http://self-issued.info/</uri>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="John Bradley" initials="J." surname="Bradley">
<organization abbrev="Ping Identity">Ping Identity</organization>
<address>
<email>ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com</email>
<uri>http://www.thread-safe.com/</uri>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Nat Sakimura" initials="N." surname="Sakimura">
<organization abbrev="NRI">Nomura Research
Institute</organization>
<address>
<email>n-sakimura@nri.co.jp</email>
<uri>http://nat.sakimura.org/</uri>
</address>
</author>
<date day="1" month="July" year="2014"/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft"
value="draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token"/>
<format target="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token"
type="HTML"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="OAuth.JWT">
<front>
<title abbrev="OAuth JWT Assertion Profiles">JSON Web Token (JWT)
Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization
Grants</title>
<!-- add 'role="editor"' below for the editors if appropriate -->
<author fullname="Michael B. Jones" initials="M.B." surname="Jones">
<!-- role="editor" -->
<organization>Microsoft</organization>
<address>
<email>mbj@microsoft.com</email>
<uri>http://self-issued.info/</uri>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Brian Campbell" initials="B." surname="Campbell">
<organization abbrev="Ping Identity">Ping Identity</organization>
<address>
<email>brian.d.campbell@gmail.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Chuck Mortimore" initials="C." surname="Mortimore">
<organization abbrev="Salesforce">Salesforce</organization>
<address>
<email>cmortimore@salesforce.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<date day="28" month="April" year="2014"/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer"/>
<format target="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer"
type="HTML"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="OAuth.SAML2">
<front>
<title abbrev="OAuth SAML Assertion Profiles">SAML 2.0 Profile for
OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants</title>
<!-- add 'role="editor"' below for the editors if appropriate -->
<author fullname="Brian Campbell" initials="B." surname="Campbell">
<organization abbrev="Ping Identity">Ping Identity</organization>
<address>
<email>brian.d.campbell@gmail.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Chuck Mortimore" initials="C." surname="Mortimore">
<organization abbrev="Salesforce">Salesforce.com</organization>
<address>
<email>cmortimore@salesforce.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Michael B. Jones" initials="M.B." surname="Jones">
<organization>Microsoft</organization>
<address>
<email>mbj@microsoft.com</email>
<uri>http://self-issued.info/</uri>
</address>
</author>
<date day="28" month="April" year="2014"/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft"
value="draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer"/>
<format target="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer"
type="HTML"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="JWS">
<front>
<title>JSON Web Signature (JWS)</title>
<author fullname="Michael B. Jones" initials="M.B." surname="Jones">
<organization>Microsoft</organization>
<address>
<email>mbj@microsoft.com</email>
<uri>http://self-issued.info/</uri>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="John Bradley" initials="J." surname="Bradley">
<organization abbrev="Ping Identity">Ping Identity</organization>
<address>
<email>ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com</email>
<uri>http://www.thread-safe.com/</uri>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Nat Sakimura" initials="N." surname="Sakimura">
<organization abbrev="NRI">Nomura Research
Institute</organization>
<address>
<email>n-sakimura@nri.co.jp</email>
<uri>http://nat.sakimura.org/</uri>
</address>
</author>
<date day="1" month="July" year="2014"/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft"
value="draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature"/>
<format type="HTML"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="JWK">
<front>
<title>JSON Web Key (JWK)</title>
<author fullname="Michael B. Jones" initials="M.B." surname="Jones">
<organization>Microsoft</organization>
<address>
<email>mbj@microsoft.com</email>
<uri>http://self-issued.info/</uri>
</address>
</author>
<date day="1" month="July" year="2014"/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key"/>
<format target="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key"
type="HTML"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="IANA.Language">
<front>
<title>Language Subtag Registry</title>
<author>
<organization>Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
(IANA)</organization>
</author>
<date year="2005"/>
</front>
<format target="http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry"
type="TXT"/>
</reference>
</references>
<references title="Informative References">
<reference anchor="OAuth.Registration.Management">
<front>
<title abbrev="OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Registration Management">OAuth 2.0
Dynamic Client Registration Management Protocol</title>
<author fullname="Justin Richer" initials="J" surname="Richer">
<organization>The MITRE Corporation</organization>
<address>
<email>jricher@mitre.org</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Michael B. Jones" initials="M.B." surname="Jones">
<organization abbrev="Microsoft">Microsoft</organization>
<address>
<email>mbj@microsoft.com</email>
<uri>http://self-issued.info/</uri>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="John Bradley" initials="J." surname="Bradley">
<organization abbrev="Ping Identity">Ping Identity</organization>
<address>
<email>ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Maciej Machulak" initials="M" surname="Machulak">
<organization>Newcastle University</organization>
<address>
<email>m.p.machulak@ncl.ac.uk</email>
<uri>http://ncl.ac.uk/</uri>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Phil Hunt" initials="P" surname="Hunt">
<organization>Oracle Corporation</organization>
<address>
<email>phil.hunt@yahoo.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<date day="3" month="July" year="2014"/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft"
value="draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-management"/>
<format target="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-management"
type="HTML"/>
</reference>
</references>
<section anchor="UseCases" title="Use Cases">
<t>This appendix describes different ways that this specification can be
utilized, including describing some of the choices that may need to be
made. Some of the choices are independent and can be used in
combination, whereas some of the choices are interrelated.</t>
<section anchor="OpenOrProtected"
title="Open versus Protected Dynamic Client Registration">
<section anchor="OpenRegistration"
title="Open Dynamic Client Registration">
<t>Authorization servers that support open registration allow
registrations to be made with no initial access token. This allows
all client software to register with the authorization server.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="ProtectedRegistration"
title="Protected Dynamic Client Registration">
<t>Authorization servers that support protected registration require
that an initial access token be used when making registration
requests. While the method by which a client or developer receives
this initial access token and the method by which the authorization
server validates this initial access token are out of scope for this
specification, a common approach is for the developer to use a
manual pre-registration portal at the authorization server that
issues an initial access token to the developer.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="SoftwareStatementUses"
title="Registration Without or With Software Statements">
<section anchor="NoSoftwareStatement"
title="Registration Without a Software Statement">
<t>When a software statement is not used in the registration
request, the authorization server must be willing to use client
metadata values without them being digitally signed or MACed (and thereby
attested to) by any authority. (Note that this choice is independent
of the Open versus Protected choice, and that an initial access
token is another possible form of attestation.)</t>
</section>
<section anchor="WithSoftwareStatement"
title="Registration With a Software Statement">
<t>A software statement can be used in a registration request to
provide attestation by an authority for a set of client metadata values.
This can be useful when the
authorization server wants to restrict registration to client
software attested to by a set of authorities or when it wants to
know that multiple registration requests refer to the same piece of
client software.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="ByClientOrDeveloper"
title="Registration by the Client or Developer">
<section anchor="ByClient" title="Registration by the Client">
<t>In some use cases, client software will dynamically register
itself with an authorization server to obtain a client identifier and other
information needed to interact with the authorization server. In
this case, no client identifier for the authorization server is packaged
with the client software.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="ByDeveloper" title="Registration by the Developer">
<t>In some cases, the developer (or development software being used
by the developer) will pre-register the client software with the
authorization server or a set of authorization servers. In this
case, the client identifier value(s) for the authorization server(s) can be
packaged with the client software.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="IDPerInstanceOrSoftware"
title="Client ID per Client Instance or per Client Software">
<section anchor="IDPerInstance"
title="Client ID per Client Software Instance">
<t>In some cases, each deployed instance of a piece of client
software will dynamically register and obtain distinct client identifier
values. This can be advantageous, for instance, if the code flow is
being used, as it also enables each client instance to have its own
client secret. This can be useful for native clients, which cannot
maintain the secrecy of a client secret value packaged with the
software, but which may be able to maintain the secrecy of a
per-instance client secret.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="SharedID"
title="Client ID Shared Among All Instances of Client Software">
<t>In some cases, each deployed instance of a piece of client
software will share a common client identifier value. For instance, this is
often the case for in-browser clients using the implicit flow, when
no client secret is involved. Particular authorization servers might
choose, for instance, to maintain a mapping between software
statement values and client identifier values, and return the same client identifier
value for all registration requests for a particular piece of
software. The circumstances under which an authorization server
would do so, and the specific software statement characteristics
required in this case, are beyond the scope of this
specification.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="StatefulOrStateless"
title="Stateful or Stateless Registration">
<section anchor="Stateful" title="Stateful Client Registration">
<t>In some cases, authorization servers will maintain state about
registered clients, typically indexing this state using the client identifier
value. This state would typically include the client metadata
values associated with the client registration, and possibly other
state specific to the authorization server's implementation. When
stateful registration is used, operations to support retrieving
and/or updating this state may be supported.
One possible set of operations upon stateful registrations is described in the
<xref target="OAuth.Registration.Management"/> specification.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="Stateless" title="Stateless Client Registration">
<t>In some cases, authorization servers will be implemented in a
manner the enables them to not maintain any local state about
registered clients. One means of doing this is to encode all the
registration state in the returned client identifier value, and possibly
encrypting the state to the authorization server to maintain the
confidentiality and integrity of the state.</t>
</section>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="Acknowledgments" title="Acknowledgments">
<t>The authors thank the OAuth Working Group, the User-Managed Access
Working Group, and the OpenID Connect Working Group participants for
their input to this document. In particular, the following individuals
have been instrumental in their review and contribution to various
versions of this document: Amanda Anganes, Derek Atkins, Tim Bray,
Domenico Catalano, Donald Coffin, Vladimir Dzhuvinov, George Fletcher,
Thomas Hardjono, Phil Hunt, William Kim, Torsten Lodderstedt, Eve Maler,
Josh Mandel, Nov Matake, Tony Nadalin, Nat Sakimura, Christian Scholz,
and Hannes Tschofenig.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="History" title="Document History">
<t>[[ to be removed by the RFC editor before publication as an RFC
]]</t>
<t>
-18
<list style="symbols">
<t>
Corrected an example HTTP response status code to be 201 Created.
</t>
<t>
Said more about who issues and uses initial access tokens and software statements.
</t>
<t>
Stated that the use of an initial access token is required when
the authorization server limits the parties that can register a client.
</t>
<t>
Stated that the implementation and use of all client metadata fields is OPTIONAL,
other than <spanx style="verb">redirect_uris</spanx>,
which MUST be used for redirect-based flows and implemented
to fulfill the requirement in Section 2 of OAuth 2.0.
</t>
<t>
Added the <spanx style="verb">application_type</spanx> metadata value,
which had somehow been omitted.
</t>
<t>
Added missing default metadata values, which had somehow been omitted.
</t>
<t>
Clarified that the <spanx style="verb">software_id</spanx> is ultimately
asserted by the client developer.
</t>
<t>
Clarified that the <spanx style="verb">error</spanx> member is required in error responses,
<spanx style="verb">error_description</spanx> member is optional,
and other members may be present.
</t>
<t>
Added security consideration about registrations with duplicate
<spanx style="verb">software_id</spanx> and
<spanx style="verb">software_version</spanx> values.
</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>
-17
<list style="symbols">
<t>Merged draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-metadata back into this document.</t>
<t>Removed "Core" from the document title.</t>
<t>Explicitly state that all metadata members are optional.</t>
<t>Clarified language around software statements for use in
registration context.</t>
<t>Clarified that software statements need to be digitally signed or MACed.</t>
<t>Added a <spanx style="verb">jwks</spanx> metadata parameter
to parallel the <spanx style="verb">jwks_uri</spanx> parameter.</t>
<t>Removed normative language from terminology.</t>
<t>Expanded abstract and introduction.</t>
<t>Addressed review comments from several working group members.</t>
</list></t>
<t>-16 <list style="symbols">
<t>Replaced references to draft-jones-oauth-dyn-reg-metadata and
draft-jones-oauth-dyn-reg-management with
draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-metadata and
draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-management.</t>
<t>Addressed review comments by Phil Hunt and Tony Nadalin.</t>
</list></t>
<t>-15 <list style="symbols">
<t>Partitioned the Dynamic Client Registration specification into
core, metadata, and management specifications. This built on work
first published as draft-richer-oauth-dyn-reg-core-00 and
draft-richer-oauth-dyn-reg-management-00.</t>
<t>Added the ability to use Software Statements. This built on work
first published as draft-hunt-oauth-software-statement-00 and
draft-hunt-oauth-client-association-00.</t>
<t>Created the IANA OAuth Registration Client Metadata registry for
registering Client Metadata values.</t>
<t>Defined Client Instance term and stated that multiple instances
can use the same client identifier value under certain circumstances.</t>
<t>Rewrote the introduction.</t>
<t>Rewrote the Use Cases appendix.</t>
</list></t>
<t>-14</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Added software_id and software_version metadata fields</t>
<t>Added direct references to RFC6750 errors in read/update/delete
methods</t>
</list></t>
<t>-13</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Fixed broken example text in registration request and in delete
request</t>
<t>Added security discussion of separating clients of different
grant types</t>
<t>Fixed error reference to point to RFC6750 instead of RFC6749</t>
<t>Clarified that servers must respond to all requests to
configuration endpoint, even if it's just an error code</t>
<t>Lowercased all Terms to conform to style used in RFC6750</t>
</list></t>
<t>-12</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Improved definition of Initial Access Token</t>
<t>Changed developer registration scenario to have the Initial
Access Token gotten through a normal OAuth 2.0 flow</t>
<t>Moved non-normative client lifecycle examples to appendix</t>
<t>Marked differentiating between auth servers as out of scope</t>
<t>Added protocol flow diagram</t>
<t>Added credential rotation discussion</t>
<t>Called out Client Registration Endpoint as an OAuth 2.0 Protected
Resource</t>
<t>Cleaned up several pieces of text</t>
</list></t>
<t>-11</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Added localized text to registration request and response
examples.</t>
<t>Removed <spanx style="verb">client_secret_jwt</spanx> and <spanx
style="verb">private_key_jwt</spanx>.</t>
<t>Clarified <spanx style="verb">tos_uri</spanx> and <spanx
style="verb">policy_uri</spanx> definitions.</t>
<t>Added the OAuth Token Endpoint Authentication Methods registry
for registering <spanx style="verb">token_endpoint_auth_method</spanx>
metadata values.</t>
<t>Removed uses of non-ASCII characters, per RFC formatting
rules.</t>
<t>Changed <spanx style="verb">expires_at</spanx> to <spanx
style="verb">client_secret_expires_at</spanx> and <spanx
style="verb">issued_at</spanx> to <spanx style="verb">client_id_issued_at</spanx>
for greater clarity.</t>
<t>Added explanatory text for different credentials (Initial Access
Token, Registration Access Token, Client Credentials) and what
they're used for.</t>
<t>Added Client Lifecycle discussion and examples.</t>
<t>Defined Initial Access Token in Terminology section.</t>
</list></t>
<t>-10</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Added language to point out that scope values are
service-specific</t>
<t>Clarified normative language around client metadata</t>
<t>Added extensibility to token_endpoint_auth_method using absolute
URIs</t>
<t>Added security consideration about registering redirect URIs</t>
<t>Changed erroneous 403 responses to 401's with notes about token
handling</t>
<t>Added example for initial registration credential</t>
</list></t>
<t>-09</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Added method of internationalization for Client Metadata
values</t>
<t>Fixed SAML reference</t>
</list></t>
<t>-08</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Collapsed jwk_uri, jwk_encryption_uri, x509_uri, and
x509_encryption_uri into a single jwks_uri parameter</t>
<t>Renamed grant_type to grant_types since it's a plural value</t>
<t>Formalized name of "OAuth 2.0" throughout document</t>
<t>Added JWT Bearer Assertion and SAML 2 Bearer Assertion to example
grant types</t>
<t>Added response_types parameter and explanatory text on its use
with and relationship to grant_types</t>
</list></t>
<t>-07</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Changed registration_access_url to registration_client_uri</t>
<t>Fixed missing text in 5.1</t>
<t>Added Pragma: no-cache to examples</t>
<t>Changed "no such client" error to 403</t>
<t>Renamed Client Registration Access Endpoint to Client
Configuration Endpoint</t>
<t>Changed all the parameter names containing "_url" to instead use
"_uri"</t>
<t>Updated example text for forming Client Configuration Endpoint
URL</t>
</list></t>
<t>-06</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Removed secret_rotation as a client-initiated action, including
removing client secret rotation endpoint and parameters.</t>
<t>Changed _links structure to single value
registration_access_url.</t>
<t>Collapsed create/update/read responses into client info
response.</t>
<t>Changed return code of create action to 201.</t>
<t>Added section to describe suggested generation and composition of
Client Registration Access URL.</t>
<t>Added clarifying text to PUT and POST requests to specify JSON in
the body.</t>
<t>Added Editor's Note to DELETE operation about its inclusion.</t>
<t>Added Editor's Note to registration_access_url about alternate
syntax proposals.</t>
</list></t>
<t>-05</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>changed redirect_uri and contact to lists instead of space
delimited strings</t>
<t>removed operation parameter</t>
<t>added _links structure</t>
<t>made client update management more RESTful</t>
<t>split endpoint into three parts</t>
<t>changed input to JSON from form-encoded</t>
<t>added READ and DELETE operations</t>
<t>removed Requirements section</t>
<t>changed token_endpoint_auth_type back to
token_endpoint_auth_method to match OIDC who changed to match us</t>
</list></t>
<t>-04</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>removed default_acr, too undefined in the general OAuth2 case</t>
<t>removed default_max_auth_age, since there's no mechanism for
supplying a non-default max_auth_age in OAuth2</t>
<t>clarified signing and encryption URLs</t>
<t>changed token_endpoint_auth_method to token_endpoint_auth_type to
match OIDC</t>
</list></t>
<t>-03</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>added scope and grant_type claims</t>
<t>fixed various typos and changed wording for better clarity</t>
<t>endpoint now returns the full set of client information</t>
<t>operations on client_update allow for three actions on metadata:
leave existing value, clear existing value, replace existing value
with new value</t>
</list></t>
<t>-02</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Reorganized contributors and references</t>
<t>Moved OAuth references to RFC</t>
<t>Reorganized model/protocol sections for clarity</t>
<t>Changed terminology to "client register" instead of "client
associate"</t>
<t>Specified that client_id must match across all subsequent
requests</t>
<t>Fixed RFC2XML formatting, especially on lists</t>
</list></t>
<t>-01</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Merged UMA and OpenID Connect registrations into a single
document</t>
<t>Changed to form-parameter inputs to endpoint</t>
<t>Removed pull-based registration</t>
</list></t>
<t>-00</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Imported original UMA draft specification</t>
</list></t>
</section>
</back>
</rfc>
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 03:37:45 |