One document matched: draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-22.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-22" 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="15" month="January" year="2015"/>
<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. 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. Multiple applications
using OAuth 2.0 have previously developed mechanisms for accomplishing
such registrations. This specification generalizes the registration
mechanisms defined by the <xref target="OpenID.Registration">OpenID
Connect Dynamic Client Registration 1.0</xref> specification and used by
the <xref target="I-D.hardjono-oauth-umacore">User Managed Access (UMA)
Profile of OAuth 2.0</xref> specification in a way that is compatible
with both, while being applicable to a wider set of OAuth 2.0 use
cases.</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 client
developer. In other cases, a software statement will be issued by
a third party organization for use by the client developer. 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 |
| | or Client Error Response +---------------+
+-----------+
]]></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 the client's 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>
<t>Examples of different configurations and usages are included in
<xref target="UseCases"/>.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="ClientMetadata" title="Client Metadata">
<t>Registered 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>These 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, unless stated otherwise.</t>
<t><list style="hanging">
<t hangText="redirect_uris"><vspace/>Array of redirection URI values
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 that support dynamic registration for
redirect-based flows 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>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 grant type definition. Authorization servers
MAY allow for other values as defined in the grant type extension
process described in OAuth 2.0 Section 2.5. If omitted, the default
behavior is that the client will use only the <spanx style="verb">authorization_code</spanx>
Grant Type.</t>
<t hangText="response_types"><vspace/>Array of the OAuth 2.0
response types that the client can 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>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 grant type definition.
Authorization servers MAY allow for other values as defined in the
grant type extension process is described in OAuth 2.0 Section 2.5.
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 that describes a
contractual relationship between the end-user and the client that
the end-user accepts when authorizing the client. The authorization
server SHOULD display this URL to the end-user if it is provided.
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 privacy policy document that describes how the
deployment organization collects, uses, retains, and discloses
personal data. The authorization server SHOULD display this URL to
the end-user if it is provided. 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 referencing the client's JSON
Web Key Set <xref target="JWK"/> document, which contains 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. For instance, these keys might be
used by some applications for validating signed requests made to the
token endpoint when using JWTs for client authentication <xref
target="OAuth.JWT"/>. Use of this parameter is preferred over the
<spanx style="verb">jwks</spanx> parameter, as it allows for easier
key rotation. The <spanx style="verb">jwks_uri</spanx> and <spanx
style="verb">jwks</spanx> parameters MUST NOT both be present in the
same request or response.</t>
<t hangText="jwks"><vspace/>Client's JSON Web Key Set <xref
target="JWK"/> document value, which contains 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, such as native clients that cannot host public URLs. The
<spanx style="verb">jwks_uri</spanx> and <spanx style="verb">jwks</spanx>
parameters MUST NOT both be present in the same request or
response.</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 as a workaround 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 in
<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. It is RECOMMENDED that software statements
contain the <spanx style="verb">software_id</spanx> claim to allow
authorization servers to correlate different instances of software
using the same software statement.</t>
<t>For example, a software statement could contain the following
claims:</t>
<figure>
<artwork><![CDATA[{
"software_id": "4NRB1-0XZABZI9E6-5SM3R",
"client_name": "Example Statement-based Client",
"client_uri": "https://client.example.net/"
}]]></artwork>
</figure>
<t/>
<t>The following non-normative example JWT includes these claims and
has been asymmetrically signed using RS256:</t>
<figure>
<preamble>Line breaks are for display purposes only</preamble>
<artwork><![CDATA[eyJhbGciOiJSUzI1NiJ9.
eyJzb2Z0d2FyZV9pZCI6IjROUkIxLTBYWkFCWkk5RTYtNVNNM1IiLCJjbGll
bnRfbmFtZSI6IkV4YW1wbGUgU3RhdGVtZW50LWJhc2VkIENsaWVudCIsImNs
aWVudF91cmkiOiJodHRwczovL2NsaWVudC5leGFtcGxlLm5ldC8ifQ.
GHfL4QNIrQwL18BSRdE595T9jbzqa06R9BT8w409x9oIcKaZo_mt15riEXHa
zdISUvDIZhtiyNrSHQ8K4TvqWxH6uJgcmoodZdPwmWRIEYbQDLqPNxREtYn0
5X3AR7ia4FRjQ2ojZjk5fJqJdQ-JcfxyhK-P8BAWBd6I2LLA77IG32xtbhxY
fHX7VhuU5ProJO8uvu3Ayv4XRhLZJY4yKfmyjiiKiPNe-Ia4SMy_d_QSWxsk
U5XIQl5Sa2YRPMbDRXttm2TfnZM1xx70DoYi8g6czz-CPGRi4SW_S2RKHIJf
IjoI3zTJ0Y2oe0_EJAiXbL6OyF9S5tKxDXV8JIndSA
]]></artwork>
</figure>
<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 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>. Implementation security
considerations can be found in <xref target="TLS.BCP">Recommendations
for Secure Use of TLS and DTLS</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 provided 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>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 and registering a JWK set by value (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":[{
"e": "AQAB",
"n": "nj3YJwsLUFl9BmpAbkOswCNVx17Eh9wMO-_AReZwBqfaWFcfG
HrZXsIV2VMCNVNU8Tpb4obUaSXcRcQ-VMsfQPJm9IzgtRdAY8NN8Xb7PEcYyk
lBjvTtuPbpzIaqyiUepzUXNDFuAOOkrIol3WmflPUUgMKULBN0EUd1fpOD70p
RM0rlp_gg_WNUKoW1V-3keYUJoXH9NztEDm_D2MQXj9eGOJJ8yPgGL8PAZMLe
2R7jb9TxOCPDED7tY_TU4nFPlxptw59A42mldEmViXsKQt60s1SLboazxFKve
qXC_jpLUt22OC6GUG63p-REw-ZOr3r845z50wMuzifQrMI9bQ",
"kty": "RSA"
}]},
"example_extension_parameter": "example_value"
}
]]></artwork>
</figure>
<section anchor="ClientRegistrationSoftwareStatement"
title="Client Registration Request Using a Software Statement">
<t>In addition to JSON elements, client metadata values MAY also be
provided in a software statement, as described in <xref
target="SoftwareStatement"/>. The authorization server MAY ignore
the software statement if it does not support this feature. If the
server supports software statements, client metadata values conveyed
in the software statement MUST take precedence over those conveyed
using plain JSON elements.</t>
<t>Software statements are included in the requesting JSON object
using this OPTIONAL 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>
<figure>
<preamble>In the following example, some registration parameters
are conveyed as claims in a software statement from the example in
the <xref target="SoftwareStatement"/> section, 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":"eyJhbGciOiJSUzI1NiJ9.
eyJzb2Z0d2FyZV9pZCI6IjROUkIxLTBYWkFCWkk5RTYtNVNNM1IiLCJjbGll
bnRfbmFtZSI6IkV4YW1wbGUgU3RhdGVtZW50LWJhc2VkIENsaWVudCIsImNs
aWVudF91cmkiOiJodHRwczovL2NsaWVudC5leGFtcGxlLm5ldC8ifQ.
GHfL4QNIrQwL18BSRdE595T9jbzqa06R9BT8w409x9oIcKaZo_mt15riEXHa
zdISUvDIZhtiyNrSHQ8K4TvqWxH6uJgcmoodZdPwmWRIEYbQDLqPNxREtYn0
5X3AR7ia4FRjQ2ojZjk5fJqJdQ-JcfxyhK-P8BAWBd6I2LLA77IG32xtbhxY
fHX7VhuU5ProJO8uvu3Ayv4XRhLZJY4yKfmyjiiKiPNe-Ia4SMy_d_QSWxsk
U5XIQl5Sa2YRPMbDRXttm2TfnZM1xx70DoYi8g6czz-CPGRi4SW_S2RKHIJf
IjoI3zTJ0Y2oe0_EJAiXbL6OyF9S5tKxDXV8JIndSA",
"scope":"read write",
"example_extension_parameter":"example_value"
}
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="Responses" title="Responses">
<t>Upon a successful registration request, 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 request, the authorization server
responds with an error, as described in <xref
target="ClientRegistrationError"/>.</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> and SHOULD be unique for multiple
instances of a client using the same <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 of issuance.</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 of
expiration.</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 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 unmodified in the response along with other
metadata using the <spanx style="verb">software_statement</spanx>
member name. 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>
<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 "IESG". 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 referencing 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">jwks</spanx></t>
<t>Client Metadata Description: 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 "IESG". 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 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>. Implementation security
considerations can be found in <xref target="TLS.BCP">Recommendations
for Secure Use of TLS and DTLS</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 redirection
URI 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.
Additionally, in order to prevent hijacking of the return values of the
redirection, registered redirection URI values MUST be one of:</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>A remote web site protected by TLS (e.g.,
https://client.example.com/oauth_redirect)</t>
<t>A web site hosted on the local machine using an HTTP URI (e.g.,
http://localhost:8080/oauth_redirect)</t>
<t>A non-HTTP application-specific URL that is available only to the
client application (e.g., exampleapp://oauth_redirect)</t>
</list></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 signed by an acceptable authority (such as the software API
publisher), 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 needs to 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 impostors
to impersonate a confidential client.</t>
</section>
<section title="Privacy Considerations">
<t>As the protocol described in this specification deals almost
exclusively with information about software and not about people, there
are very few privacy concerns for its use. The notable exception is the
<spanx style="verb">contacts</spanx> field as defined in <xref
target="ClientMetadata">Client Metadata</xref>, which contains contact
information for the developers or other parties responsible for the
client software. These values are intended to be displayed to end users
and will be available to the administrators of the authorization server.
As such, the developer may wish to provide an email address or other
contact information expressly dedicated to the purpose of supporting the
client instead of using their personal or professional addresses.
Alternatively, the developer may wish to provide a collective email
address for the client to allow for continuing contact and support of
the client software after the developer moves on and someone else takes
over that responsibility.</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.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="4" 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="23" month="July" 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="23" month="July" 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="4" 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="4" 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>
<date day="26" month="August" 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>
<reference anchor="OpenID.Registration">
<front>
<title>OpenID Connect Dynamic Client Registration 1.0</title>
<author fullname="Nat Sakimura" initials="N." surname="Sakimura">
<organization abbrev="NRI">Nomura Research Institute,
Ltd.</organization>
</author>
<author fullname="John Bradley" initials="J." surname="Bradley">
<organization abbrev="Ping Identity">Ping Identity</organization>
</author>
<author fullname="Michael B. Jones" initials="M.B." surname="Jones">
<organization abbrev="Microsoft">Microsoft</organization>
</author>
<date day="25" month="February" year="2014"/>
</front>
<format target="http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-registration-1_0.html"
type="HTML"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="TLS.BCP">
<front>
<title>Recommendations for Secure Use of TLS and DTLS</title>
<author fullname="Yaron Sheffer" initials="Y." surname="Sheffer">
<organization>Porticor</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>29 HaHarash St.</street>
<city>Hod HaSharon</city>
<region/>
<code>4501303</code>
<country>Israel</country>
</postal>
<email>yaronf.ietf@gmail.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Ralph Holz" initials="R." surname="Holz">
<organization>Technische Universitaet Muenchen</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>Boltzmannstr. 3</street>
<city>Garching</city>
<region/>
<code>85748</code>
<country>Germany</country>
</postal>
<email>ralph.ietf@gmail.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Peter Saint-Andre" initials="P."
surname="Saint-Andre">
<organization>&yet</organization>
<address>
<email>peter@andyet.com</email>
<uri>https://andyet.com/</uri>
</address>
</author>
<date day="11" month="November" year="2014"/>
</front>
</reference>
<?rfc include='http://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.draft-hardjono-oauth-umacore-10.xml' ?>
</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>-22</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Reorganized registration response sections.</t>
<t>Addressed shepherd comments.</t>
<t>Added concrete JWK set to example.</t>
</list></t>
<t>-21</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Applied minor editorial fixes.</t>
<t>Added software statement examples.</t>
<t>Moved software statement request details to sub-section.</t>
<t>Clarified that a server MAY ignore the software statement (just
as it MAY ignore other metadata values).</t>
<t>Removed TLS 1.0.</t>
<t>Added privacy considerations around "contacts" field.</t>
<t>Marked software_id as RECOMMENDED inside of a software
statement.</t>
</list></t>
<t>-20</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Applied minor editorial fixes from working group comments.</t>
</list></t>
<t>-19</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Added informative references to the OpenID Connect Dynamic Client
Registration and UMA specifications in the introduction.</t>
<t>Clarified the <spanx style="verb">jwks</spanx> and <spanx
style="verb">jwks_uri</spanx> descriptions and included an example
situation in which they might be used.</t>
<t>Removed <spanx style="verb">application_type</spanx>.</t>
<t>Added redirection URI usage restrictions to the Security
Considerations section, based on the client type.</t>
<t>Expanded the <spanx style="verb">tos_uri</spanx> and <spanx
style="verb">policy_uri</spanx> descriptions.</t>
</list></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 16:23:17 |