idnits 2.17.1 draft-hardt-oauth-mutual-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a Security Considerations section. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the ID-Checklist requires). -- The document date (November 13, 2017) is 2354 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Unused Reference: 'RFC6750' is defined on line 133, but no explicit reference was found in the text Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group D. Hardt 3 Internet-Draft Amazon 4 Intended status: Informational November 13, 2017 5 Expires: May 17, 2018 7 This is an Internet-draft 8 draft-hardt-oauth-mutual-00 10 Abstract 12 There are times when a user has a pair protected resources that would 13 like to request access to each other. While OAuth flows typically 14 enable the user to grant a client access to a protected resource, 15 granting the inverse access requires an additional flow. Mutual 16 OAuth enables a more seemless experience for the user to grant access 17 to a pair of protected resources. 19 Status of This Memo 21 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 22 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 24 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 25 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 26 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 27 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 29 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 30 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 31 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 32 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 34 This Internet-Draft will expire on May 17, 2018. 36 Copyright Notice 38 Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 39 document authors. All rights reserved. 41 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 42 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 43 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 44 publication of this document. Please review these documents 45 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 46 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 47 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 48 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 49 described in the Simplified BSD License. 51 1. Introduction 53 In the usual three legged, authorization code grant, OAuth flow 54 enables a resource owner (user) to enable a client (party A) to be 55 granted authorization to access a protected resource (party B). If 56 party A also has a protected resource that the user would like to let 57 party B access, then a complete OAuth flow, but in the reverse 58 direction, must be performed. 60 Mutual OAuth enables party A to obtain constent from the user to 61 grant access to a protected resource at party A, and to short circuit 62 the OAuth flow by passing an authorization code to party B using the 63 acces token party A obtained from party B to provide party B the 64 context of the user. This simplifies the user experience for each 65 party to obtain acces tokens from the other. 67 1.1. Terminology 69 In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", 70 "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", 71 and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 72 [RFC2119]. 74 2. Mutual Authorization Flow 76 The mutual authorization flow starts after the client (party A) has 77 obtained an access token from the authorization server (party B) per 78 [RFC6749] 4.1 Authorization Code Grant. 80 After party A obtains consent from the user to grant access to 81 protected resources at party A, party A generates an authorization 82 code representing the access granted to party B for that user. Party 83 A then makes a request to party B's token endpoint by sending the 84 following parameters using the "application/x-www-form-urlencoded" 85 format per [RFC6749] Appendix B with a character encoding of UTF-8 in 86 the HTTP request entity-body: 88 grant_type REQUIRED. Value MUST be set to 89 "mutual_authorization_code". 91 code REQUIRED. The authorization code generated by party A. 93 client_id REQUIRED, party A'a client ID. 95 and pass the access token obtained from Party B in the HTTP 96 authorization header. 98 For example, the client makes the following HTTP request using TLS 99 (with extra line breaks for display purposes only): 101 POST /token HTTP/1.1 102 Host: server.example.com 103 Authorization: Bearer ej4hsyfishwssjdusisdhkjsdksusdhjkjsdjk 104 Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded 106 grant_type=mutual_authorization_code&code=hasdyubasdjahsbdkjbasd 108 Party B MUST then verify the access token was granted to the client 109 identified by the client_id. 111 Party B then plays the role of the client to make an access token 112 request per [RFC6749] 4.1.3. 114 3. IANA Considerations 116 TBD. 118 4. Acknowledgements 120 TBD. 122 5. Normative References 124 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 125 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 126 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 127 . 129 [RFC6749] Hardt, D., Ed., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework", 130 RFC 6749, DOI 10.17487/RFC6749, October 2012, 131 . 133 [RFC6750] Jones, M. and D. Hardt, "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization 134 Framework: Bearer Token Usage", RFC 6750, 135 DOI 10.17487/RFC6750, October 2012, 136 . 138 Appendix A. Document History 139 A.1. draft-hardt-distributed-oauth-00 141 o Initial version. 143 Author's Address 145 Dick Hardt 146 Amazon 148 Email: dick.hardt@gmail.com