Internet DRAFT - draft-hardt-mutual-oauth
draft-hardt-mutual-oauth
Network Working Group D. Hardt
Internet-Draft Amazon
Intended status: Informational October 30, 2017
Expires: May 3, 2018
This is an Internet-draft
draft-hardt-mutual-oauth-00
Abstract
There are times when a user has a pair protected resources that would
like to request access to each other. While OAuth flows typically
enable the user to grant a client access to a protected resource,
granting the inverse access requires an additional flow. Mutual
OAuth enables a more seemless experience for the user to grant access
to a pair of protected resources.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 3, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
Hardt Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft I-D October 2017
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
1. Introduction
In the usual three legged, authorization code grant, OAuth flow
enables a resource owner (user) to enable a client (party A) to be
granted authorization to access a protected resource (party B). If
party A also has a protected resource that the user would like to let
party B access, then a complete OAuth flow, but in the reverse
direction, must be performed.
Mutual OAuth enables party A to obtain constent from the user to
grant access to a protected resource at party A, and to short circuit
the OAuth flow by passing an authorization code to party B using the
acces token party A obtained from party B to provide party B the
context of the user. This simplifies the user experience for each
party to obtain acces tokens from the other.
1.1. Terminology
In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
"SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
[RFC2119].
2. Mutual Authorization Flow
The mutual authorization flow starts after the client (party A) has
obtained an access token from the authorization server (party B) per
[RFC6749] 4.1 Authorization Code Grant.
After party A obtains consent from the user to grant access to
protected resources at party A, party A generates an authorization
code representing the access granted to party B for that user. Party
A then makes a request to party B's token endpoint by sending the
following parameters using the "application/x-www-form-urlencoded"
format per [RFC6749] Appendix B with a character encoding of UTF-8 in
the HTTP request entity-body:
grant_type REQUIRED. Value MUST be set to
"mutual_authorization_code".
code REQUIRED. The authorization code generated by party A.
client_id REQUIRED, party A'a client ID.
Hardt Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft I-D October 2017
and pass the access token obtained from Party B in the HTTP
authorization header.
For example, the client makes the following HTTP request using TLS
(with extra line breaks for display purposes only):
POST /token HTTP/1.1
Host: server.example.com
Authorization: Bearer ej4hsyfishwssjdusisdhkjsdksusdhjkjsdjk
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
grant_type=mutual_authorization_code&code=hasdyubasdjahsbdkjbasd
Party B MUST then verify the access token was granted to the client
identified by the client_id.
Party B then plays the role of the client to make an access token
request per [RFC6749] 4.1.3.
3. IANA Considerations
TBD.
4. Acknowledgements
TBD.
5. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC6749] Hardt, D., Ed., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework",
RFC 6749, DOI 10.17487/RFC6749, October 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6749>.
[RFC6750] Jones, M. and D. Hardt, "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization
Framework: Bearer Token Usage", RFC 6750,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6750, October 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6750>.
Appendix A. Document History
Hardt Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft I-D October 2017
A.1. draft-hardt-distributed-oauth-00
o Initial version.
Author's Address
Dick Hardt
Amazon
Email: dick.hardt@gmail.com
Hardt Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 4]
