Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


[RFC Home] [TEXT|PDF|HTML] [Tracker] [IPR] [Info page]

EXPERIMENTAL
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                    J. Richer, Ed.Request for Comments: 7592Category: Experimental                                          M. JonesISSN: 2070-1721                                                Microsoft                                                              J. Bradley                                                           Ping Identity                                                             M. Machulak                                                    Newcastle University                                                               July 2015OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration Management ProtocolAbstract   This specification defines methods for management of OAuth 2.0   dynamic client registrations for use cases in which the properties of   a registered client may need to be changed during the lifetime of the   client.  Not all authorization servers supporting dynamic client   registration will support these management methods.Status of This Memo   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is   published for examination, experimental implementation, and   evaluation.   This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet   community.  This document is a product of the Internet Engineering   Task Force (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF   community.  It has received public review and has been approved for   publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not   all documents approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of   Internet Standard; seeSection 2 of RFC 5741.   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained athttp://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7592.Richer, et al.                Experimental                      [Page 1]

RFC 7592        OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Registration Management      July 2015Copyright Notice   Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the   document authors.  All rights reserved.   This document is subject toBCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents   (http://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   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as   described in the Simplified BSD License.Table of Contents1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21.1.  Notational Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31.2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31.3.  Protocol Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42.  Client Configuration Endpoint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52.1.  Client Read Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62.2.  Client Update Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72.3.  Client Delete Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93.  Client Information Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .126.  Privacy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .137.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13Appendix A.  Registration Tokens and Client Credentials . . . . .15A.1.  Credential Rotation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16Appendix B.  Forming the Client Configuration Endpoint URL  . . .16   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .181.  Introduction   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 with that server.  "OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration   Protocol" [RFC7591] describes how an OAuth 2.0 client can be   dynamically registered with an authorization server to obtain this   information and how metadata about the client can be registered with   the server.Richer, et al.                Experimental                      [Page 2]

RFC 7592        OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Registration Management      July 2015   This specification extends the core registration specification by   defining a set of methods for management of dynamic OAuth 2.0 client   registrations beyond those defined in the core registration   specification.  In some situations, the registered metadata of a   client can change over time, either by modification at the   authorization server or by a change in the client software itself.   This specification provides methods for the current registration   state of a client to be queried at the authorization server, methods   for the registration of a client to be updated at the authorization   server, and methods for the client to be unregistered from the   authorization server.   This Experimental RFC is intended to encourage development and   deployment of interoperable solutions with the intent that feedback   from this experience will inform a future standard.1.1.  Notational Conventions   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 [RFC2119].   Unless otherwise noted, all the protocol parameter names and values   are case sensitive.1.2.  Terminology   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 OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749] and the   terms defined by "OAuth 2.0 Client Dynamic Registration Protocol"   [RFC7591].   This specification defines the following terms:   Client Configuration Endpoint      OAuth 2.0 endpoint through which registration information for a      registered client can be managed.  This URL for this endpoint is      returned by the authorization server in the client information      response.Richer, et al.                Experimental                      [Page 3]

RFC 7592        OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Registration Management      July 2015   Registration Access Token      OAuth 2.0 Bearer Token issued by the authorization server through      the client registration endpoint that is used to authenticate the      caller when accessing the client's registration information at the      client configuration endpoint.  This access token is associated      with a particular registered client.1.3.  Protocol Flow   This extends the flow in "OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration   Protocol" [RFC7591] as follows:        +--------(A)- Initial Access Token (OPTIONAL)        |        |   +----(B)- Software Statement (OPTIONAL)        |   |        v   v    +-----------+                                      +---------------+    |           |--(C)- Client Registration Request -->|    Client     |    |           |                                      | Registration  |    |           |<-(D)- Client Information Response ---|   Endpoint    |    |           |                                      +---------------+    |           |    |           |                                      +---------------+    | Client or |--(E)- Read or Update Request ------->|               |    | Developer |                                      |               |    |           |<-(F)- Client Information Response ---|    Client     |    |           |                                      | Configuration |    |           |                                      |   Endpoint    |    |           |                                      |               |    |           |--(G)- Delete Request --------------->|               |    |           |                                      |               |    |           |<-(H)- Delete Confirmation -----------|               |    +-----------+                                      +---------------+   Figure 1: Abstract Extended Dynamic Client Registration Flow   The abstract OAuth 2.0 client dynamic registration flow illustrated   in Figure 1 describes the interaction between the client or developer   and the endpoints defined in this specification and its parent.  This   figure does not demonstrate error conditions.  This flow includes the   following steps:   (A)   Optionally, the client or developer is issued an initial access         token for use with 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.Richer, et al.                Experimental                      [Page 4]

RFC 7592        OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Registration Management      July 2015   (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.   (C)   The client or developer calls the client registration endpoint         with its desired registration metadata, optionally including         the initial access token from (A) if one is required by the         authorization server.   (D)   The authorization server registers the client and returns:         *  the client's registered metadata,         *  a client identifier that is unique to the server,         *  a set of client credentials such as a client secret, if            applicable for this client,         *  a URI pointing to the client configuration endpoint, and         *  a registration access token to be used when calling the            client configuration endpoint.   (E)   The client or developer optionally calls the client         configuration endpoint with a read or update request using the         registration access token issued in (D).  An update request         contains all of the client's registered metadata.   (F)   The authorization server responds with the client's current         configuration, potentially including a new registration access         token and a new set of client credentials such as a client         secret if applicable for this client.  If a new registration         access token is issued, it replaces the token issued in (D) for         all subsequent calls to the client configuration endpoint.   (G)   The client or developer optionally calls the client         configuration endpoint with a delete request using the         registration access token issued in (D) or (F).   (H)   The authorization server deprovisions the client and responds         with a confirmation that the deletion has taken place.2.  Client Configuration Endpoint   The client configuration endpoint is an OAuth 2.0 protected resource   that is provisioned by the server to facilitate viewing, updating,   and deleting a client's registered information.  The location of thisRicher, et al.                Experimental                      [Page 5]

RFC 7592        OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Registration Management      July 2015   endpoint is communicated to the client through the   "registration_client_uri" member of the client information response,   as specified inSection 3.  The client MUST use its registration   access token in all calls to this endpoint as an OAuth 2.0 Bearer   Token [RFC6750].   The client configuration endpoint MUST be protected by a transport-   layer security mechanism, as described inSection 5.   Operations on this endpoint are switched through the use of different   HTTP methods [RFC7231].  If an authorization server does not support   a particular method on the client configuration endpoint, it MUST   respond with the appropriate error code.2.1.  Client Read Request   To read the current configuration of the client on the authorization   server, the client makes an HTTP GET request to the client   configuration endpoint, authenticating with its registration access   token.   The following is a non-normative example request:     GET /register/s6BhdRkqt3 HTTP/1.1     Accept: application/json     Host: server.example.com     Authorization: Bearer reg-23410913-abewfq.123483   Upon successful read of the information for a currently active   client, the authorization server responds with an HTTP 200 OK with   content type of "application/json" and a payload as described inSection 3.  Some values in the response, including the   "client_secret" and "registration_access_token", MAY be different   from those in the initial registration response.  If the   authorization server includes a new client secret and/or registration   access token in its response, the client MUST immediately discard its   previous client secret and/or registration access token.  The value   of the "client_id" MUST NOT change from the initial registration   response.   If the registration access token used to make this request is not   valid, the server MUST respond with an error as described in the   OAuth Bearer Token Usage specification [RFC6750].   If the client does not exist on this server, the server MUST respond   with HTTP 401 Unauthorized and the registration access token used to   make this request SHOULD be immediately revoked.Richer, et al.                Experimental                      [Page 6]

RFC 7592        OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Registration Management      July 2015   If the client does not have permission to read its record, the server   MUST return an HTTP 403 Forbidden.2.2.  Client Update Request   To update a previously registered client's registration with an   authorization server, the client makes an HTTP PUT request to the   client configuration endpoint with a content type of "application/   json".  The HTTP entity payload is a JSON [RFC7159] document   consisting of a JSON object and all parameters as top-level members   of that JSON object.  This request is authenticated by the   registration access token issued to the client.   This request MUST include all client metadata fields as returned to   the client from a previous registration, read, or update operation.   The updated client metadata fields request MUST NOT include the   "registration_access_token", "registration_client_uri",   "client_secret_expires_at", or "client_id_issued_at" fields described   inSection 3.   Valid values of client metadata fields in this request MUST replace,   not augment, the values previously associated with this client.   Omitted fields MUST be treated as null or empty values by the server,   indicating the client's request to delete them from the client's   registration.  The authorization server MAY ignore any null or empty   value in the request just as any other value.   The client MUST include its "client_id" field in the request, and it   MUST be the same as its currently issued client identifier.  If the   client includes the "client_secret" field in the request, the value   of this field MUST match the currently issued client secret for that   client.  The client MUST NOT be allowed to overwrite its existing   client secret with its own chosen value.   For all metadata fields, the authorization server MAY replace any   invalid values with suitable default values, and it MUST return any   such fields to the client in the response.   For example, a client could send the following request to the client   registration endpoint to update the client registration in the above   example with new information.Richer, et al.                Experimental                      [Page 7]

RFC 7592        OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Registration Management      July 2015   The following is a non-normative example request:     PUT /register/s6BhdRkqt3 HTTP/1.1     Accept: application/json     Host: server.example.com     Authorization: Bearer reg-23410913-abewfq.123483     {      "client_id": "s6BhdRkqt3",      "client_secret": "cf136dc3c1fc93f31185e5885805d",      "redirect_uris": [        "https://client.example.org/callback",        "https://client.example.org/alt"],      "grant_types": ["authorization_code", "refresh_token"],      "token_endpoint_auth_method": "client_secret_basic",      "jwks_uri": "https://client.example.org/my_public_keys.jwks",      "client_name": "My New Example",      "client_name#fr": "Mon Nouvel Exemple",      "logo_uri": "https://client.example.org/newlogo.png",      "logo_uri#fr": "https://client.example.org/fr/newlogo.png"     }   This example uses client metadata values defined in [RFC7591].   Upon successful update, the authorization server responds with an   HTTP 200 OK message with content type "application/json" and a   payload as described inSection 3.  Some values in the response,   including the "client_secret" and "registration_access_token", MAY be   different from those in the initial registration response.  If the   authorization server includes a new client secret and/or registration   access token in its response, the client MUST immediately discard its   previous client secret and/or registration access token.  The value   of the "client_id" MUST NOT change from the initial registration   response.   If the registration access token used to make this request is not   valid, the server MUST respond with an error as described in the   OAuth Bearer Token Usage specification [RFC6750].   If the client does not exist on this server, the server MUST respond   with HTTP 401 Unauthorized, and the registration access token used to   make this request SHOULD be immediately revoked.   If the client is not allowed to update its records, the server MUST   respond with HTTP 403 Forbidden.Richer, et al.                Experimental                      [Page 8]

RFC 7592        OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Registration Management      July 2015   If the client attempts to set an invalid metadata field and the   authorization server does not set a default value, the authorization   server responds with an error as described in [RFC7591].2.3.  Client Delete Request   To deprovision itself on the authorization server, the client makes   an HTTP DELETE request to the client configuration endpoint.  This   request is authenticated by the registration access token issued to   the client.   The following is a non-normative example request:     DELETE /register/s6BhdRkqt3 HTTP/1.1     Host: server.example.com     Authorization: Bearer reg-23410913-abewfq.123483   A successful delete action will invalidate the "client_id",   "client_secret", and "registration_access_token" for this client,   thereby preventing the "client_id" from being used at either the   authorization endpoint or token endpoint of the authorization server.   If possible, the authorization server SHOULD immediately invalidate   all existing authorization grants and currently active access tokens,   all refresh tokens, and all other tokens associated with this client.   If a client has been successfully deprovisioned, the authorization   server MUST respond with an HTTP 204 No Content message.   If the server does not support the delete method, the server MUST   respond with HTTP 405 Not Supported.   If the registration access token used to make this request is not   valid, the server MUST respond with an error as described in the   OAuth Bearer Token Usage specification [RFC6750].   If the client does not exist on this server, the server MUST respond   with HTTP 401 Unauthorized and the registration access token used to   make this request SHOULD be immediately revoked, if possible.   If the client is not allowed to delete itself, the server MUST   respond with HTTP 403 Forbidden.   The following is a non-normative example response:     HTTP/1.1 204 No Content     Cache-Control: no-store     Pragma: no-cacheRicher, et al.                Experimental                      [Page 9]

RFC 7592        OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Registration Management      July 20153.  Client Information Response   This specification extends the client information response defined in   "OAuth 2.0 Client Dynamic Registration" [RFC7591], which states that   the response contains the client identifier (as well as the client   secret if the client is a confidential client).  When used with this   specification, the client information response also contains the   fully qualified URL of the client configuration endpoint (Section 2)   for this specific client that the client or developer may use to   manage the client's registration configuration, as well as a   registration access token that is to be used by the client or   developer to perform subsequent operations at the client   configuration endpoint.   registration_client_uri      REQUIRED.  String containing the fully qualified URL of the client      configuration endpoint for this client.   registration_access_token      REQUIRED.  String containing the access token to be used at the      client configuration endpoint to perform subsequent operations      upon the client registration.   Additionally, the authorization server MUST return all registered   metadata about this client, including any fields provisioned by the   authorization server itself.  The authorization server MAY reject or   replace any of the client's requested metadata values submitted   during the registration or update requests and substitute them with   suitable values.   The response is an "application/json" document with all parameters as   top-level members of a JSON object [RFC7159].Richer, et al.                Experimental                     [Page 10]

RFC 7592        OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Registration Management      July 2015   The following is a non-normative example response:     HTTP/1.1 200 OK     Content-Type: application/json     Cache-Control: no-store     Pragma: no-cache     {      "registration_access_token": "reg-23410913-abewfq.123483",      "registration_client_uri":         "https://server.example.com/register/s6BhdRkqt3",      "client_id": "s6BhdRkqt3",      "client_secret": "cf136dc3c1fc93f31185e5885805d",      "client_id_issued_at": 2893256800,      "client_secret_expires_at": 2893276800,      "client_name": "My Example Client",      "client_name#ja-Jpan-JP":         "\u30AF\u30E9\u30A4\u30A2\u30F3\u30C8\u540D",      "redirect_uris": [        "https://client.example.org/callback",        "https://client.example.org/callback2"],      "grant_types": ["authorization_code", "refresh_token"],      "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"     }4.  IANA Considerations   This specification registers the following client metadata names and   descriptions in the "OAuth Dynamic Client Registration Metadata"   registry established by [RFC7591]:   o  Client Metadata Name: "registration_access_token"   o  Client Metadata Description: OAuth 2.0 Bearer Token used to access      the client configuration endpoint   o  Change Controller: IESG   o  Specification Document(s):RFC 7592   o  Client Metadata Name: "registration_client_uri"   o  Client Metadata Description: Fully qualified URI of the client      registration endpoint   o  Change Controller: IESGRicher, et al.                Experimental                     [Page 11]

RFC 7592        OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Registration Management      July 2015   o  Specification Document(s):RFC 75925.  Security Considerations   While the client secret can expire, the registration access token   SHOULD NOT expire while a client is still actively registered.  If   this token were to expire, a developer or client could be left in a   situation where they have no means of retrieving, updating, or   deleting the client's registration information.  Were that the case,   a new registration would be required, thereby generating a new client   identifier.  However, to limit the exposure surface of the   registration access token, the registration access token MAY be   rotated when the developer or client does a read or update operation   on the client's client configuration endpoint.  As the registration   access tokens are relatively long-term credentials, and since the   registration access token is a Bearer Token and acts as the sole   authentication for use at the client configuration endpoint, it MUST   be protected by the developer or client as described in the OAuth 2.0   Bearer Token Usage specification [RFC6750].   Since requests to the client configuration 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   endpoint.  The server MUST support TLS 1.2 [RFC5246] and MAY support   additional transport-layer security mechanisms meeting its security   requirements.  When using TLS, the client MUST perform a TLS/SSL   server certificate check, perRFC 6125 [RFC6125].  Implementation   security considerations can be found in Recommendations for Secure   Use of TLS and DTLS [BCP195].   Since possession of the registration access token authorizes the   holder to potentially read, modify, or delete a client's registration   (including its credentials such as a client_secret), the registration   access token MUST contain sufficient entropy to prevent a random   guessing attack of this token, such as described inSection 5.2 of   [RFC6750] andSection 5.1.4.2.2 of [RFC6819].   If a client is deprovisioned from a server, any outstanding   registration access token for that client MUST be invalidated at the   same time.  Otherwise, this can lead to an inconsistent state wherein   a client could make requests to the client configuration endpoint   where the authentication would succeed but the action would fail   because the client is no longer valid.  The authorization server MUST   treat all such requests as if the registration access token was   invalid by returning an HTTP 401 Unauthorized error, as described.Richer, et al.                Experimental                     [Page 12]

RFC 7592        OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Registration Management      July 20156.  Privacy Considerations   This specification poses no additional privacy considerations beyond   those described in the core "OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration   Protocol" [RFC7591].7.  Normative References   [BCP195]   Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre,              "Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer              Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security              (DTLS)",BCP 195,RFC 7525, May 2015,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp195>.   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate              Requirement Levels",BCP 14,RFC 2119,              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.   [RFC5246]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2",RFC 5246,              DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.   [RFC6125]  Saint-Andre, P. and J. Hodges, "Representation and              Verification of Domain-Based Application Service Identity              within Internet Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509              (PKIX) Certificates in the Context of Transport Layer              Security (TLS)",RFC 6125, DOI 10.17487/RFC6125, March              2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6125>.   [RFC6749]  Hardt, D., Ed., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework",RFC 6749, DOI 10.17487/RFC6749, October 2012,              <http://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,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6750>.   [RFC6819]  Lodderstedt, T., Ed., McGloin, M., and P. Hunt, "OAuth 2.0              Threat Model and Security Considerations",RFC 6819,              DOI 10.17487/RFC6819, January 2013,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6819>.   [RFC7159]  Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data              Interchange Format",RFC 7159, DOI 10.17487/RFC7159, March              2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7159>.Richer, et al.                Experimental                     [Page 13]

RFC 7592        OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Registration Management      July 2015   [RFC7231]  Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer              Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content",RFC 7231,              DOI 10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231>.   [RFC7591]  Richer, J., Ed., Jones, M., Bradley, J., Machulak, M., and              P. Hunt, "OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration Protocol",RFC 7591, DOI 10.17487/RFC7591, July 2015,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7591>.Richer, et al.                Experimental                     [Page 14]

RFC 7592        OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Registration Management      July 2015Appendix A.  Registration Tokens and Client Credentials   Throughout the course of the dynamic registration protocol, there are   three different classes of credentials in play, each with different   properties and targets.   o  The initial access token is optionally used by the client or      developer at the registration endpoint.  This is an OAuth 2.0      token that is used to authorize the initial client registration      request.  The content, structure, generation, and validation of      this token are out of scope for this specification.  The      authorization server can use this token to verify that the      presenter is allowed to dynamically register new clients.  This      token may be shared among multiple instances of a client to allow      them to each register separately, thereby letting the      authorization server use this token to tie multiple instances of      registered clients (each with their own distinct client      identifier) back to the party to whom the initial access token was      issued, usually an application developer.  This token is usually      intended to be used only at the client registration endpoint.   o  The registration access token is used by the client or developer      at the client configuration endpoint and represents the holder's      authorization to manage the registration of a client.  This is an      OAuth 2.0 Bearer Token that is issued from the client registration      endpoint in response to a client registration request and is      returned in a client information response.  The registration      access token is uniquely bound to the client identifier and is      required to be presented with all calls to the client      configuration endpoint.  The registration access token should be      protected as described in [RFC6750] and should not be shared      between instances of a client.  If a registration access token is      shared between client instances, one instance could change or      delete registration values for all other instances of the client.      The registration access token can be rotated through the use of      the client read or update method on the client configuration      endpoint.  The registration access token is intended to be used      only at the client configuration endpoint.Richer, et al.                Experimental                     [Page 15]

RFC 7592        OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Registration Management      July 2015   o  The client credentials (such as "client_secret") are optional      depending on the type of client and are used to retrieve OAuth      tokens.  Client credentials are most often bound to particular      instances of a client and should not be shared between instances.      Note that since not all types of clients have client credentials,      they cannot be used to manage client registrations at the client      configuration endpoint.  The client credentials can be rotated      through the use of the client read or update method on the client      configuration endpoint.  The client credentials are intended to be      used only at the token endpoint.A.1.  Credential Rotation   The authorization server may be configured to issue new registration   access tokens and/or client credentials (such as a "client_secret")   throughout the lifetime of the client.  This may help minimize the   impact of exposed credentials.  The authorization server conveys new   registration access tokens and client credentials (if applicable) to   the client in the client information response of either a read or   update request to the client configuration endpoint.  The client's   current registration access token and client credentials (if   applicable) MUST be included in the client information response.   The registration access token SHOULD be rotated only in response to a   read or update request to the client configuration endpoint.  At this   point, the new registration access token is returned to the client,   the old registration access token MUST be discarded by the client,   and it SHOULD be discarded by the server, if possible.  If, instead,   the registration access token were to expire or be invalidated   outside of such requests, the client or developer might be locked out   of managing the client's configuration.   Note that the authorization server decides the frequency of the   credential rotation and not the client.  Methods by which the client   can request credential rotation are outside the scope of this   document.Appendix B.  Forming the Client Configuration Endpoint URL   The authorization server MUST provide the client with the fully   qualified URL in the "registration_client_uri" element of the Client   Information Response, as specified inSection 3.  The authorization   server MUST NOT expect the client to construct or discover this URL   on its own.  The client MUST use the URL as given by the server and   MUST NOT construct this URL from component pieces.Richer, et al.                Experimental                     [Page 16]

RFC 7592        OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Registration Management      July 2015   Depending on deployment characteristics, the client configuration   endpoint URL may take any number of forms.  It is RECOMMENDED that   this endpoint URL be formed through the use of a server-constructed   URL string that combines the client registration endpoint's URL and   the issued "client_id" for this client, with the latter as either a   path parameter or a query parameter.  For example, a client with the   client identifier "s6BhdRkqt3" could be given a client configuration   endpoint URL of "https://server.example.com/register/s6BhdRkqt3"   (path parameter) or of "https://server.example.com/   register?client_id=s6BhdRkqt3" (query parameter).  In both of these   cases, the client simply uses the URL as given by the authorization   server.   These common patterns can help the server to more easily determine   the client to which the request pertains, which MUST be matched   against the client to which the registration access token was issued.   If desired, the server MAY simply return the client registration   endpoint URL as the client configuration endpoint URL and change   behavior based on the authentication context provided by the   registration access token.Acknowledgments   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 draft 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.Richer, et al.                Experimental                     [Page 17]

RFC 7592        OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Registration Management      July 2015Authors' Addresses   Justin Richer (editor)   Email: ietf@justin.richer.org   Michael B. Jones   Microsoft   Email: mbj@microsoft.com   URI:http://self-issued.info/   John Bradley   Ping Identity   Email: ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com   Maciej Machulak   Newcastle University   Email: maciej.machulak@gmail.comRicher, et al.                Experimental                     [Page 18]

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp