OAuth 2.0 Attestation-Based Client Authentication
draft-ietf-oauth-attestation-based-client-auth-06
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (oauth WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Tobias Looker , Paul Bastian , Christian Bormann | ||
| Last updated | 2025-07-07 | ||
| Replaces | draft-looker-oauth-attestation-based-client-auth | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-oauth-attestation-based-client-auth-06
Web Authorization Protocol T. Looker
Internet-Draft MATTR
Intended status: Informational P. Bastian
Expires: 8 January 2026 Bundesdruckerei
C. Bormann
SPRIND
7 July 2025
OAuth 2.0 Attestation-Based Client Authentication
draft-ietf-oauth-attestation-based-client-auth-06
Abstract
This specification defines an extension to the OAuth 2 protocol as
defined in [RFC6749] which enables a Client Instance to include a
key-bound attestation in interactions with an Authorization Server or
a Resource Server. This new method enables Client Instances involved
in a client deployment that is traditionally viewed as a public
client, to be able to utilize this key-bound attestation to
authenticate.
About This Document
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
The latest revision of this draft can be found at https://oauth-
wg.github.io/draft-ietf-oauth-attestation-based-client-auth/draft-
ietf-oauth-attestation-based-client-auth.html. Status information
for this document may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/
draft-ietf-oauth-attestation-based-client-auth/.
Discussion of this document takes place on the Web Authorization
Protocol Working Group mailing list (mailto:oauth@ietf.org), which is
archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/oauth/.
Subscribe at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth/.
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/oauth-wg/draft-ietf-oauth-attestation-based-
client-auth.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Looker, et al. Expires 8 January 2026 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Attestation-Based Client Authe July 2025
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 8 January 2026.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2025 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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Relation to RATS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Client Attestation Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Client Attestation JWT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. Client Attestation PoP JWT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Client Attestation using a Header based syntax . . . . . . . 10
6.1. Client Attestation HTTP Headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2. Validating HTTP requests feature client attestations . . 11
6.3. Client Attestation at the Token Endpoint . . . . . . . . 12
6.4. Client Attestation at the PAR Endpoint . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Concatenated Serialization for Client Attestations . . . . . 13
7.1. Concatenated Serialization Format . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.2. Validating the Concatenated Serialization . . . . . . . . 14
8. Challenge Retrieval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.1. Providing Challenges on Previous Responses . . . . . . . 16
9. Verification and Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10. Implementation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
10.1. Reuse of a Client Attestation JWT . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Looker, et al. Expires 8 January 2026 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Attestation-Based Client Authe July 2025
10.2. Refresh token binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10.3. Web Server Default Maximum HTTP Header Sizes . . . . . . 18
10.4. Rotation of Client Instance Key . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10.5. Replay Attack Detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
11. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
11.1. Client Instance Tracking Across Authorization Servers . 19
12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
12.1. Replay Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
13. Appendix A IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
13.1. OAuth Parameters Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
13.2. OAuth Extensions Error Registration . . . . . . . . . . 21
13.3. Registration of attest_jwt_client_auth Token Endpoint
Authentication Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
13.4. HTTP Field Name Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Appendix A. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1. Introduction
Traditional OAuth security concepts perform client authentication
through a backend channel. In ecosystems such as the Issuer-Holder-
Verifier model used in [SD-JWT], this model raises privacy concerns,
as it would enable the backend to recognize which Holder (i.e.
client) interacts with which Issuer (i.e. Authorization Server) and
potentially furthermore see the credentials being issued. This
specification establishes a mechanism for a backend-attested client
authentication through a frontend channel to address these issues.
Additionally, this approach acknowledges the evolving landscape of
OAuth 2 deployments, where the ability for public clients to
authenticate securely and reliably has become increasingly important.
Leveraging platform mechanisms to validate a client instance, e.g.
for mobile native apps, enables secure authentication that would
otherwise be difficult with traditional OAuth client authentication
methods. Transforming these platform-specific mechanisms into a
common format as described in this specification abstracts this
complexity to minimize the efforts for the Authorization Server.
This primary purpose of this specification is the authentication of a
client instance enabled through the client backend attesting to it.
The client backend may also attest further technical properties about
the hardware and software of the client instance.
Looker, et al. Expires 8 January 2026 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Attestation-Based Client Authe July 2025
The following diagram depicts the overall architecture and protocol
flow.
(3)
+-------+
| |
| \ /
+--------------------+
| |
| Client Attester |
| (backend) |
| |
+--------------------+
/ \ |
(2) | | (4)
| \ /
+---------------+ +---------------+
+----->| | | |
(1) | | Client | (6) | Authorization |
| | Instance |<--------->| Server |
+------| | | |
+---------------+ +---------------+
/ \ |
| |
+-------+
(5)
The following steps describe this OAuth flow:
(1) The Client Instance generates a key (Client Instance Key) and
optional further attestations (that are out of scope) to prove its
authenticity to the Client Attester.
(2) The Client Instance sends this data to the Client Attester in
request for a Client Attestation JWT.
(3) The Client Attester validates the Client Instance Key and
optional further data. It generates a signed Client Attestation JWT
that is cryptographically bound to the Client Instance Key generated
by the Client. Therefore, the attestation is bound to this
particular Client Instance.
(4) The Client Attester responds to the Client Instance by sending
the Client Attestation JWT.
(5) The Client Instance generates a Proof of Possession (PoP) with
the Client Instance Key.
Looker, et al. Expires 8 January 2026 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Attestation-Based Client Authe July 2025
(6) The Client Instance sends both the Client Attestation JWT and the
Client Attestation PoP JWT to the authorization server, e.g. within a
token request. The authorization server validates the Client
Attestation and thus authenticates the Client Instance.
Please note that the protocol details for steps (2) and (4),
particularly how the Client Instance authenticates to the Client
Attester, are beyond the scope of this specification. Furthermore,
this specification is designed to be flexible and can be implemented
even in scenarios where the client does not have a backend serving as
a Client Attester. In such cases, each Client Instance is
responsible for performing the functions typically handled by the
Client Attester on its own.
2. Conventions and Definitions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. Terminology
Client Attestation JWT: A JSON Web Token (JWT) generated by the
Client Attester which is bound to a key managed by a Client
Instance which can then be used by the instance for client
authentication.
Client Attestation Proof of Possession (PoP) JWT: A Proof of
Possession generated by the Client Instance using the key that the
Client Attestation JWT is bound to.
Client Instance: A deployed instance of a piece of client software.
Client Instance Key: A cryptographic asymmetric key pair that is
generated by the Client Instance where the public key of the key
pair is provided to the Client Attester. This public key is then
encapsulated within the Client Attestation JWT and is utilized to
sign the Client Attestation Proof of Possession.
Client Attester: An entity that authenticates a Client Instance and
attests it by issuing a Client Attestation JWT.
Challenge: A String that is the input to a cryptographic challenge-
response pattern. This is traditionally called a nonce within
OAuth.
Looker, et al. Expires 8 January 2026 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Attestation-Based Client Authe July 2025
4. Relation to RATS
The Remote Attestation Procedures (RATS) architecture defined by
[RFC9334] has some commonalities to this document. The flow
specified in this specification relates to the "Passport Model" in
RATS. However, while the RATS ecosystem gives explicit methods and
values how the RATS Attester proves itself to the Verifier, this is
deliberately out of scope for Attestation-Based Client
Authentication. Additionally, the terminology between RATS and OAuth
is different:
* a RATS "Attester" relates to an OAuth "Client"
* a RATS "Relying Party" relates to an OAuth "Authorization Server
or Resource Server"
* a RATS "Verifier" relates to the "Client Attester" defined in this
specification
* a RATS "Attestion Result" relates to the "Client Attestation JWT"
defined by this specification
* a RATS "Endorser", "Reference Value Provider", "Endorsement",
"Evidence" and "Policies and Reference Values" are out of scope
for this specification
5. Client Attestation Format
This draft introduces the concept of client attestations to the OAuth
2 protocol, using two JWTs: a Client Attestation and a Client
Attestation Proof of Possession (PoP). The primary purpose of these
JWTs is to authenticate the Client Instance. These JWTs can be
transmitted via HTTP headers in an HTTP request (as described in
Section 6.1) from a Client Instance to an Authorization Server or
Resource Server, or via a concatenated serialization (as described in
Section 7) to enable usage outside of OAuth2 based interactions.
5.1. Client Attestation JWT
The Client Attestation MUST be encoded as a "JSON Web Token (JWT)"
according to [RFC7519].
The following content applies to the JWT Header:
* typ: REQUIRED. The JWT type MUST be oauth-client-attestation+jwt.
The following content applies to the JWT Claims Set:
Looker, et al. Expires 8 January 2026 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Attestation-Based Client Authe July 2025
* iss: REQUIRED. The iss (subject) claim MUST contains a unique
identifier for the entity that issued the JWT. In the absence of
an application profile specifying otherwise, compliant
applications MUST compare issuer values using the Simple String
Comparison method defined in Section 6.2.1 of [RFC3986].
* sub: REQUIRED. The sub (subject) claim MUST specify client_id
value of the OAuth Client.
* exp: REQUIRED. The exp (expiration time) claim MUST specify the
time at which the Client Attestation is considered expired by its
issuer. The authorization server MUST reject any JWT with an
expiration time that has passed, subject to allowable clock skew
between systems.
* cnf: REQUIRED. The cnf (confirmation) claim MUST specify a key
conforming to [RFC7800] that is used by the Client Instance to
generate the Client Attestation PoP JWT for client authentication
with an authorization server. The key MUST be expressed using the
"jwk" representation.
* iat: OPTIONAL. The iat (issued at) claim MUST specify the time at
which the Client Attestation was issued.
* nbf: OPTIONAL. The nbf (not before) claim MUST specify the time
before which the Client Attestation MUST NOT be accepted for
processing.
The following additional rules apply:
1. The JWT MAY contain other claims. All claims that are not
understood by implementations MUST be ignored.
2. The JWT MUST be digitally signed using an asymmetric
cryptographic algorithm. The authorization server MUST reject
the JWT if it is using a Message Authentication Code (MAC) based
algorithm. The authorization server MUST reject JWTs with an
invalid signature.
3. The authorization server MUST reject a JWT that is not valid in
all other respects per "JSON Web Token (JWT)" [RFC7519].
The following example is the decoded header and payload of a JWT
meeting the processing rules as defined above.
Looker, et al. Expires 8 January 2026 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Attestation-Based Client Authe July 2025
{
"typ": "oauth-client-attestation+jwt",
"alg": "ES256",
"kid": "11"
}
.
{
"iss": "https://attester.example.com",
"sub": "https://client.example.com",
"nbf": 1300815780,
"exp": 1300819380,
"cnf": {
"jwk": {
"kty": "EC",
"use": "sig",
"crv": "P-256",
"x": "18wHLeIgW9wVN6VD1Txgpqy2LszYkMf6J8njVAibvhM",
"y": "-V4dS4UaLMgP_4fY4j8ir7cl1TXlFdAgcx55o7TkcSA"
}
}
}
5.2. Client Attestation PoP JWT
The Client Attestation PoP MUST be encoded as a "JSON Web Token
(JWT)" according to [RFC7519].
The following content applies to the JWT Header:
* typ: REQUIRED. The JWT type MUST be oauth-client-attestation-
pop+jwt.
The following content applies to the JWT Claims Set:
* iss: REQUIRED. The iss (issuer) claim MUST specify client_id
value of the OAuth Client.
* aud: REQUIRED. The aud (audience) claim MUST specify a value that
identifies the authorization server as an intended audience. The
[RFC8414] issuer identifier URL of the authorization server MUST
be used as a value for an "aud" element to identify the
authorization server as the intended audience of the JWT.
* jti: REQUIRED. The jti (JWT identifier) claim MUST specify a
unique identifier for the Client Attestation PoP. The
authorization server can utilize the jti value for replay attack
detection, see Section 12.1.
Looker, et al. Expires 8 January 2026 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Attestation-Based Client Authe July 2025
* challenge: OPTIONAL. The challenge (challenge) claim MUST specify
a String value that is provided by the authorization server for
the client to include in the Client Attestation PoP JWT.
* iat: OPTIONAL. The iat (issued at) claim MUST specify the time at
which the Client Attestation PoP was issued. Note that the
authorization server may reject JWTs with an "iat" claim value
that is unreasonably far in the past.
* nbf: OPTIONAL. The nbf (not before) claim MUST specify the time
before which the Client Attestation PoP MUST NOT be accepted for
processing.
The following additional rules apply:
1. The JWT MAY contain other claims. All claims that are not
understood by implementations MUST be ignored.
2. The JWT MUST be digitally signed using an asymmetric
cryptographic algorithm. The authorization server MUST reject
the JWT if it is using a Message Authentication Code (MAC) based
algorithm. The authorization server MUST reject JWTs with an
invalid signature.
3. The public key used to verify the JWT MUST be the key located in
the "cnf" claim of the corresponding Client Attestation JWT.
4. The value of the iss claim, representing the client_id MUST match
the value of the sub claim in the corresponding Client
Attestation JWT.
5. The Authorization Server MUST reject a JWT that is not valid in
all other respects per "JSON Web Token (JWT)" [RFC7519].
The following example is the decoded header and payload of a JWT
meeting the processing rules as defined above.
Looker, et al. Expires 8 January 2026 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Attestation-Based Client Authe July 2025
{
"typ": "oauth-client-attestation-pop+jwt",
"alg": "ES256"
}
.
{
"iss": "https://client.example.com",
"aud": "https://as.example.com",
"nbf":1300815780,
"jti": "d25d00ab-552b-46fc-ae19-98f440f25064",
"challenge": "5c1a9e10-29ff-4c2b-ae73-57c0957c09c4"
}
6. Client Attestation using a Header based syntax
The following section defines how a Client Attestation can be
provided in an HTTP request using HTTP headers.
6.1. Client Attestation HTTP Headers
A Client Attestation JWT and Client Attestation PoP JWT can be
included in an HTTP request using the following request header
fields.
OAuth-Client-Attestation: A JWT that conforms to the structure and
syntax as defined in Section 5.1
OAuth-Client-Attestation-PoP: A JWT that adheres to the structure
and syntax as defined in Section 5.2
The following is an example of the OAuth-Client-Attestation header.
OAuth-Client-Attestation: eyJ0eXAiOiJvYXV0aC1jbGllbnQtYXR0ZXN0YXRpb24
rand0IiwiYWxnIjoiRVMyNTYiLCJraWQiOiIxMSJ9.eyJpc3MiOiJodHRwczovL2F0dGV
zdGVyLmV4YW1wbGUuY29tIiwic3ViIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9jbGllbnQuZXhhbXBsZS5jb20i
LCJuYmYiOjEzMDA4MTU3ODAsImV4cCI6MTMwMDgxOTM4MCwiY25mIjp7Imp3ayI6eyJrd
HkiOiJFQyIsInVzZSI6InNpZyIsImNydiI6IlAtMjU2IiwieCI6IjE4d0hMZUlnVzl3Vk
42VkQxVHhncHF5MkxzellrTWY2SjhualZBaWJ2aE0iLCJ5IjoiLVY0ZFM0VWFMTWdQXzR
mWTRqOGlyN2NsMVRYbEZkQWdjeDU1bzdUa2NTQSJ9fX0.4bCswkgmUHw06kKdiS2KEySR
gjj73yCEIcrz3Mv7Bgns4Bm1tCQ9FAqMLtgzb5NthwJT9AhAEBogbiD5DtxV1g
The following is an example of the OAuth-Client-Attestation-PoP
header.
Looker, et al. Expires 8 January 2026 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Attestation-Based Client Authe July 2025
OAuth-Client-Attestation-PoP: eyJhbGciOiJFUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6Im9hdXRoLWN
saWVudC1hdHRlc3RhdGlvbi1wb3Arand0In0.eyJpc3MiOiJodHRwczovL2NsaWVudC5l
eGFtcGxlLmNvbSIsImF1ZCI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXMuZXhhbXBsZS5jb20iLCJuYmYiOjEzM
DA4MTU3ODAsImV4cCI6MTMwMDgxOTM4MCwianRpIjoiZDI1ZDAwYWItNTUyYi00NmZjLW
FlMTktOThmNDQwZjI1MDY0Iiwibm9uY2UiOiI1YzFhOWUxMC0yOWZmLTRjMmItYWU3My0
1N2MwOTU3YzA5YzQifQ.rEa-dKJgRuD-aI-4bj4fDGH1up4jV--IgDMFdb9A5jSSWB7Uh
HfvLOVU_ZvAJfOWfO0MXyeunwzM3jGLB_TUkQ
Note that per [RFC9110] header field names are case-insensitive; so
OAUTH-CLIENT-ATTESTATION, oauth-client-attestation, etc., are all
valid and equivalent header field names. Case is significant in the
header field value, however.
The OAuth-Client-Attestation and OAuth-Client-Attestation-PoP HTTP
header field values uses the token68 syntax defined in Section 11.2
of [RFC9110] (repeated below for ease of reference).
OAuth-Client-Attestation = token68
OAuth-Client-Attestation-PoP = token68
token68 = 1*( ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "." /
"_" / "~" / "+" / "/" ) *"="
It is RECOMMENDED that the authorization server validate the Client
Attestation JWT prior to validating the Client Attestation PoP.
6.2. Validating HTTP requests feature client attestations
To validate an HTTP request which contains the client attestation
headers, the receiving server MUST ensure the following with regard
to a received HTTP request:
1. There is precisely one OAuth-Client-Attestation HTTP request
header field, where its value is a single well-formed JWT
conforming to the syntax outlined in Section 5.1.
2. There is precisely one OAuth-Client-Attestation-PoP HTTP request
header field, where its value is a single well-formed JWT
conforming to the syntax outlined in Section 5.2.
3. The signature of the Client Attestation PoP JWT obtained from the
OAuth-Client-Attestation-PoP HTTP header verifies with the Client
Instance Key contained in the cnf claim of the Client Attestation
JWT obtained from the OAuth-Client-Attestation HTTP header.
An error parameter according to Section 3 of [RFC6750] SHOULD be
included to indicate why a request was declined. If the Client
Attestation is absent or not using an expected server-provided
challenge, the value use_attestation_challenge can be used to
Looker, et al. Expires 8 January 2026 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Attestation-Based Client Authe July 2025
indicate that an attestation with a server-provided challenge was
expected. If the attestation and proof of possession was present but
could not be successfully verified, the value
invalid_client_attestation is used.
6.3. Client Attestation at the Token Endpoint
While usage of the the client attestation mechanism defined by this
draft can be used in a variety of different HTTP requests to
different endpoints, usage within the token request as defined by
[RFC6749] has particular additional considerations outlined below.
The Authorization Server MUST perform all of the checks outlined in
Section 6.2 for a received access token request which is making use
of the client attestation mechanism as defined by this draft.
If the token request contains a client_id parameter as per [RFC6749]
the Authorization Server MUST verify that the value of this parameter
is the same as the client_id value in the sub claim of the Client
Attestation and iss claim of the Client Attestation PoP.
The following example demonstrates usage of the client attestation
mechanism in an access token request (with extra line breaks for
display purposes only):
POST /token HTTP/1.1
Host: as.example.com
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
OAuth-Client-Attestation: eyJ0eXAiOiJvYXV0aC1jbGllbnQtYXR0ZXN0YXRpb24
rand0IiwiYWxnIjoiRVMyNTYiLCJraWQiOiIxMSJ9.eyJpc3MiOiJodHRwczovL2F0dGV
zdGVyLmV4YW1wbGUuY29tIiwic3ViIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9jbGllbnQuZXhhbXBsZS5jb20i
LCJuYmYiOjEzMDA4MTU3ODAsImV4cCI6MTMwMDgxOTM4MCwiY25mIjp7Imp3ayI6eyJrd
HkiOiJFQyIsInVzZSI6InNpZyIsImNydiI6IlAtMjU2IiwieCI6IjE4d0hMZUlnVzl3Vk
42VkQxVHhncHF5MkxzellrTWY2SjhualZBaWJ2aE0iLCJ5IjoiLVY0ZFM0VWFMTWdQXzR
mWTRqOGlyN2NsMVRYbEZkQWdjeDU1bzdUa2NTQSJ9fX0.4bCswkgmUHw06kKdiS2KEySR
gjj73yCEIcrz3Mv7Bgns4Bm1tCQ9FAqMLtgzb5NthwJT9AhAEBogbiD5DtxV1g
OAuth-Client-Attestation-PoP: eyJhbGciOiJFUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6Im9hdXRoLWN
saWVudC1hdHRlc3RhdGlvbi1wb3Arand0In0.eyJpc3MiOiJodHRwczovL2NsaWVudC5l
eGFtcGxlLmNvbSIsImF1ZCI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXMuZXhhbXBsZS5jb20iLCJuYmYiOjEzM
DA4MTU3ODAsImV4cCI6MTMwMDgxOTM4MCwianRpIjoiZDI1ZDAwYWItNTUyYi00NmZjLW
FlMTktOThmNDQwZjI1MDY0Iiwibm9uY2UiOiI1YzFhOWUxMC0yOWZmLTRjMmItYWU3My0
1N2MwOTU3YzA5YzQifQ.rEa-dKJgRuD-aI-4bj4fDGH1up4jV--IgDMFdb9A5jSSWB7Uh
HfvLOVU_ZvAJfOWfO0MXyeunwzM3jGLB_TUkQ
grant_type=authorization_code&
code=n0esc3NRze7LTCu7iYzS6a5acc3f0ogp4
Looker, et al. Expires 8 January 2026 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Attestation-Based Client Authe July 2025
6.4. Client Attestation at the PAR Endpoint
A Client Attestation can be used at the PAR endpoint instead of
alternative client authentication mechanisms like JWT client
assertion-based authentication (as defined in Section 2.2 of
[RFC7523]).
The Authorization Server MUST perform all of the checks outlined in
Section 6.2 for a received PAR request which is making use of the
client attestation mechanism as defined by this draft.
The following example demonstrates usage of the client attestation
mechanism in a PAR request (with extra line breaks for display
purposes only):
POST /as/par HTTP/1.1
Host: as.example.com
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
OAuth-Client-Attestation: eyJ0eXAiOiJvYXV0aC1jbGllbnQtYXR0ZXN0YXRpb24
rand0IiwiYWxnIjoiRVMyNTYiLCJraWQiOiIxMSJ9.eyJpc3MiOiJodHRwczovL2F0dGV
zdGVyLmV4YW1wbGUuY29tIiwic3ViIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9jbGllbnQuZXhhbXBsZS5jb20i
LCJuYmYiOjEzMDA4MTU3ODAsImV4cCI6MTMwMDgxOTM4MCwiY25mIjp7Imp3ayI6eyJrd
HkiOiJFQyIsInVzZSI6InNpZyIsImNydiI6IlAtMjU2IiwieCI6IjE4d0hMZUlnVzl3Vk
42VkQxVHhncHF5MkxzellrTWY2SjhualZBaWJ2aE0iLCJ5IjoiLVY0ZFM0VWFMTWdQXzR
mWTRqOGlyN2NsMVRYbEZkQWdjeDU1bzdUa2NTQSJ9fX0.4bCswkgmUHw06kKdiS2KEySR
gjj73yCEIcrz3Mv7Bgns4Bm1tCQ9FAqMLtgzb5NthwJT9AhAEBogbiD5DtxV1g
OAuth-Client-Attestation-PoP: eyJhbGciOiJFUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6Im9hdXRoLWN
saWVudC1hdHRlc3RhdGlvbi1wb3Arand0In0.eyJpc3MiOiJodHRwczovL2NsaWVudC5l
eGFtcGxlLmNvbSIsImF1ZCI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXMuZXhhbXBsZS5jb20iLCJuYmYiOjEzM
DA4MTU3ODAsImV4cCI6MTMwMDgxOTM4MCwianRpIjoiZDI1ZDAwYWItNTUyYi00NmZjLW
FlMTktOThmNDQwZjI1MDY0Iiwibm9uY2UiOiI1YzFhOWUxMC0yOWZmLTRjMmItYWU3My0
1N2MwOTU3YzA5YzQifQ.rEa-dKJgRuD-aI-4bj4fDGH1up4jV--IgDMFdb9A5jSSWB7Uh
HfvLOVU_ZvAJfOWfO0MXyeunwzM3jGLB_TUkQ
response_type=code&state=af0ifjsldkj&client_id=s6BhdRkqt3
&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fclient.example.org%2Fcb
&code_challenge=K2-ltc83acc4h0c9w6ESC_rEMTJ3bww-uCHaoeK1t8U
&code_challenge_method=S256&scope=account-information
7. Concatenated Serialization for Client Attestations
A Client Attestation according to this specification MAY be presented
using an alternative representation for cases where the header-based
mechanism (as introduced in introduced in Section 6.1 does not fit
the underlying protocols, e.g., for direct calls to Browser APIs. In
those cases, a concatenated serialization of the Client Attestation
and Client Attestation PoP can can be used.
Looker, et al. Expires 8 January 2026 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Attestation-Based Client Authe July 2025
7.1. Concatenated Serialization Format
This representation is created by concatenating Client Attestation
and Client Attestation PoP separated by a tilde ('~') character:
<Client Attestation>~<Client Attestation PoP>
This form is similar to an SD-JWT+KB according to Section 5 of
[SD-JWT] but does not include Disclosures, uses different typ values
and does not include the sd_hash claim in the PoP.
This concatenated serialization form allows a the presentation of a
Client Attestation and Client Attestation PoP for cases where a
header-based approach is unavailable, e.g., to establish trust in a
client when using a direct Browser API call.
The following is an example of such a concatenated serialization
(with extra line breaks for display purposes only):
eyJ0eXAiOiJvYXV0aC1jbGllbnQtYXR0ZXN0YXRpb24rand0IiwiYWxnIjoiRVMyNTYiL
CJraWQiOiIxMSJ9.eyJpc3MiOiJodHRwczovL2F0dGVzdGVyLmV4YW1wbGUuY29tIiwic
3ViIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9jbGllbnQuZXhhbXBsZS5jb20iLCJuYmYiOjEzMDA4MTU3ODAsIm
V4cCI6MTMwMDgxOTM4MCwiY25mIjp7Imp3ayI6eyJrdHkiOiJFQyIsInVzZSI6InNpZyI
sImNydiI6IlAtMjU2IiwieCI6IjE4d0hMZUlnVzl3Vk42VkQxVHhncHF5MkxzellrTWY2
SjhualZBaWJ2aE0iLCJ5IjoiLVY0ZFM0VWFMTWdQXzRmWTRqOGlyN2NsMVRYbEZkQWdje
DU1bzdUa2NTQSJ9fX0.4bCswkgmUHw06kKdiS2KEySRgjj73yCEIcrz3Mv7Bgns4Bm1tC
Q9FAqMLtgzb5NthwJT9AhAEBogbiD5DtxV1g~eyJhbGciOiJFUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6Im9h
dXRoLWNsaWVudC1hdHRlc3RhdGlvbi1wb3Arand0In0.eyJpc3MiOiJodHRwczovL2Nsa
WVudC5leGFtcGxlLmNvbSIsImF1ZCI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXMuZXhhbXBsZS5jb20iLCJuYm
YiOjEzMDA4MTU3ODAsImV4cCI6MTMwMDgxOTM4MCwianRpIjoiZDI1ZDAwYWItNTUyYi0
0NmZjLWFlMTktOThmNDQwZjI1MDY0Iiwibm9uY2UiOiI1YzFhOWUxMC0yOWZmLTRjMmIt
YWU3My01N2MwOTU3YzA5YzQifQ.rEa-dKJgRuD-aI-4bj4fDGH1up4jV--IgDMFdb9A5j
SSWB7UhHfvLOVU_ZvAJfOWfO0MXyeunwzM3jGLB_TUkQ
7.2. Validating the Concatenated Serialization
To validate a client attestation using the concatenated serialization
form, the receiving server MUST ensure the following:
1. Before the '~' character, there exists precisely a single well-
formed JWT conforming to the syntax outlined in Section 5.1.
2. After the '~' character, there exists precisely a single well-
formed JWT conforming to the syntax outlined in Section 5.2.
Looker, et al. Expires 8 January 2026 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Attestation-Based Client Authe July 2025
3. The signature of the Client Attestation PoP JWT obtained after
the '~' character verifies with the Client Instance Key contained
in the cnf claim of the Client Attestation JWT obtained before
the '~' character.
8. Challenge Retrieval
This section defines an optional mechanism that allows a Client to
request a fresh Challenge from the Authorization Server to be
included in the Client Attestation PoP JWT. This construct may be
similar or equivalent to a nonce, see terminology. The value of the
challenge is opaque to the client.
An Authorization Server MAY offer a challenge endpoint for Clients to
fetch Challenges in the context of this specification. If the
Authorization Server supports metadata as defined in [RFC8414], it
MUST signal support for the challenge endpoint by including the
metadata entry challenge_endpoint containing the URL of the endpoint
as its value. If the Authorization Server offers a challenge
endpoint, the Client MUST retrieve a challenge and MUST use this
challenge in the OAuth-Attestation-PoP as defined in (#client-
attestation-pop-jwt).
A request for a Challenge is made by sending an HTTP POST request to
the URL provided in the challenge_endpoint parameter of the
Authorization Server metadata.
The following is a non-normative example of a request:
POST /as/challenge HTTP/1.1
Host: as.example.com
Accept: application/json
The Authorization Server provides a Challenge in the HTTP response
with a 200 status code and the following parameters included in the
message body of the HTTP response using the application/json media
type: * attestation_challenge: REQUIRED if the authorization server
supports Client Attestations and server provided challenges as
described in this document. String containing a Challenge to be used
in the OAuth-Attestation-PoP as defined in (#client-attestation-pop-
jwt). The intention of this element not being required in other
circumstances is to preserve the ability for the challenge endpoint
to be used in other applications unrelated to client attestations.
The Authorization Server MUST make the response uncacheable by adding
a Cache-Control header field including the value no-store. The
Authorization Server MAY add additional challenges or data.
Looker, et al. Expires 8 January 2026 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Attestation-Based Client Authe July 2025
The following is a non-normative example of a response:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Host: as.example.com
Content-Type: application/json
{
"attestation_challenge": "AYjcyMzY3ZDhiNmJkNTZ"
}
8.1. Providing Challenges on Previous Responses
The Authorization Server MAY provide a fresh Challenge with any HTTP
response using a HTTP header-based syntax. The HTTP header field
parameter MUST be named "OAuth-Client-Attestation-Challenge" and
contain the value of the Challenge. The Client MUST use this new
Challenge for the next OAuth-Client-Attestation-PoP.
The following is a non-normative example of an Authorization Response
containing a fresh Challenge:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/json
Cache-Control: no-store
OAuth-Client-Attestation-Challenge: AYjcyMzY3ZDhiNmJkNTZ
{
"access_token": "2YotnFZFEjr1zCsicMWpAA",
"token_type": "Bearer",
"expires_in": 3600
}
9. Verification and Processing
Upon receiving a Client Attestation, the receiving server MUST ensure
the following conditions and rules:
1. If the Client Attestation was received via Header based Syntax
(as described in Section 6):
* The HTTP request contains exactly one field OAuth-Client-
Attestation and one field OAuth-Client-Attestation-PoP.
* Both fields contain exactly one well-formed JWT.
2. The Client Attestation JWT contains all claims and header
parameters as per Section 5.1.
Looker, et al. Expires 8 January 2026 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Attestation-Based Client Authe July 2025
3. The Client Attestation PoP JWT contains all claims and header
parameters as per Section 5.2.
4. The alg JOSE Header Parameter for both JWTs indicates a
registered asymmetric digital signature algorithm
[IANA.JOSE.ALGS], is not none, is not MAC based, is supported by
the application, and is acceptable per local policy.
5. The signature of the Client Attestation JWT verifies with the
public key of a known and trusted Attester.
6. The key contained in the cnf claim of the Client Attestation JWT
is not a private key.
7. The signature of the Client Attestation PoP JWT verifies with
the public key contained in the cnf claim of the Client
Attestation JWT.
8. If the server provided a challenge value to the client, the
challenge claim is present in the Client Attestation PoP JWT and
matches the server-provided challenge value.
9. The creation time of the Client Attestation PoP JWT as
determined by either the iat claim or a server managed timestamp
via the challenge claim, is within an acceptable window.
10. The audience claim in the Client Attestation PoP JWT is the
issuer identifier URL of the authorization server as described
in [RFC8414].
11. The Client Attestation JWT is fresh enough for the policies of
the authorization server by checking the iat or exp claims.
12. Depending on the security requirements of the deployment,
additional checks to guarantee replay protection for the Client
Attestation PoP JWT might need to be applied (see Section 12.1
for more details).
13. If a client_id is provided in the request containing the Client
Attestation, then this client_id matches the sub claim of the
Client Attestation JWT and the iss claim of the Client
Attestation PoP JWT.
10. Implementation Considerations
Looker, et al. Expires 8 January 2026 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Attestation-Based Client Authe July 2025
10.1. Reuse of a Client Attestation JWT
Implementers should be aware that the design of this authentication
mechanism deliberately allows for a Client Instance to re-use a
single Client Attestation JWT in multiple interactions/requests with
an Authorization Server, whilst producing a fresh Client Attestation
PoP JWT. Client deployments should consider this when determining
the validity period for issued Client Attestation JWTs as this
ultimately controls how long a Client Instance can re-use a single
Client Attestation JWT.
10.2. Refresh token binding
Authorization servers issuing a refresh token in response to a token
request using the client attestation mechanism as defined by this
draft MUST bind the refresh token to the Client Instance, and NOT
just the client as specified in section 6 [RFC6749]. To prove this
binding, the Client Instance MUST use the client attestation
mechanism when refreshing an access token. The client MUST also use
the same key that was present in the "cnf" claim of the client
attestation that was used when the refresh token was issued.
10.3. Web Server Default Maximum HTTP Header Sizes
Because the Client Attestation and Client Attestation PoP are
communicated using HTTP headers, implementers should consider that
web servers may have a default maximum HTTP header size configured
which could be too low to allow conveying a Client Attestation and or
Client Attestation PoP in an HTTP request. It should be noted, that
this limit is not given by the HTTP [RFC9112], but instead web server
implementations commonly set a default maximum size for HTTP headers.
As of 2024, typical limits for modern web servers configure maximum
HTTP headers as 8 kB or more as a default.
10.4. Rotation of Client Instance Key
This specification does not provide a mechanism to rotate the Client
Instance Key in the Client Attestation JWT's "cnf" claim. If the
Client Instance needs to use a new Client Instance Key for any
reason, then it MUST request a new Client Attestation JWT from its
Client Attester.
Looker, et al. Expires 8 January 2026 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Attestation-Based Client Authe July 2025
10.5. Replay Attack Detection
Authorization Servers implementing measures to detect replay attacks
as described in Section 12.1 require efficient data structures to
manage large amounts of challenges for use cases with high volumes of
transactions. To limit the size of the data structure, the
Authorization Server should use a sliding window, allowing Client
Attestation PoPs within a certain time window, in which the seen
challenge or jti values are stored, but discarded afterwards. To
ensure security, Client Attestation PoPs outside this time window
MUST be rejected by the Authorization Server. The allowed window is
determined by the iat of the Client Attestation PoP and the sliding
window time duration chosen by the Authorization Server. These data
structures need to:
* search the data structure to validate whether a challenge form a
Client Attestation PoP has been previously seen
* insert the new challenges from the Client Attestation PoP if the
search returned no result
* delete the challenges after the Client Attestation PoP has passed
the sliding time window
A trie (also called prefix tree), or a patricia trie (also called
radix tree) is a RECOMMENDED data structures to implement such a
mechanism.
11. Privacy Considerations
11.1. Client Instance Tracking Across Authorization Servers
Implementers should be aware that using the same client attestation
across multiple authorization servers could result in correlation of
the end user using the Client Instance through claim values
(including the Client Instance Key in the cnf claim). Client
deployments are therefore RECOMMENDED to use different Client
Attestation JWTs with different Client Instance Keys across different
authorization servers.
12. Security Considerations
The guidance provided by [RFC7519] and [RFC8725] applies.
Looker, et al. Expires 8 January 2026 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Attestation-Based Client Authe July 2025
12.1. Replay Attacks
An Authorization Server SHOULD implement measures to detect replay
attacks by the Client Instance. In the context of this
specification, this means to detect that an attacker is resending the
same Client Attestation PoP JWT in multiple requests. The following
options are RECOMMENDED for this client authentication method:
* The Authorization Server manages a list of witnessed jti values of
the Client Attestation PoP JWT for the time window of which the
JWT would be considered valid. This sliding time window is based
on the iat of the Client Attestation PoP and and the duration
chosen by the Authorization Server. If any Client Attestation PoP
JWT would be replayed, the Authorization Server would recognize
the jti value in the list and respond with an authentication
error. Details how to implement such a data structure to maintain
jti values is given in Section 10.5.
* The Authorization Server provides a challenge as an OAuth-Client-
Attestation-Challenge in the challenge endpoint to the Client
Instance and the Client uses it as a challenge value in the Client
Attestation PoP JWT. The Authorization Server may chose to:
- manage a list of witnessed challenge values, similar to the
previously described jti approach. Details how to implement
such a data structure to maintain challenge values is given in
Section 10.5. This guarantees stronger replay protection with
a challenge chosen by the Authorization Server itself, at the
potential cost of an additional round-trip.
- use self-contained challenges while not storing the seen
challenges. This approach scales well, while only guaranteeing
freshness, but no replay protection within the limited time-
window chosen by the Authorization Server.
* The Authorization Server generates a challenge that is bound to
the Client Instance's session, such that a specific challenge in
the Client Attestation PoP JWT is expected and validated. The
Authorization Server may either:
- send the challenge as part of another previous response to the
Client Instance of providing the challenge explicitly
- reuse an existing artefact of the Client Instance's session,
e.g. the authorization code. This MUST be communicated out-of-
band between Authorization Server and Client.
Looker, et al. Expires 8 January 2026 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Attestation-Based Client Authe July 2025
Because clock skews between servers and clients may be large,
Authorization Servers MAY limit Client Attestation PoP lifetimes by
using server-provided challenge values containing the time at the
server rather than comparing the client-supplied iat time to the time
at the server. Challenges created in this way yield the same result
even in the face of arbitrarily large clock skews.
In any case the Authorization Server SHOULD ensure the freshness of
the Client Attestation PoP by checking either the iat claim or if
present the server provided challenge, is within an acceptable time
window.
The approach using a challenge explicitly provided by the
Authorization Server gives stronger replay attack detection
guarantees, however support by the Authorization Server is OPTIONAL
to simplify mandatory implementation requirements. The jti value is
mandatory and hence acts as a default fallback.
13. Appendix A IANA Considerations
13.1. OAuth Parameters Registration
This specification requests registration of the following values in
the IANA "OAuth Authorization Server Metadata" registry
[IANA.OAuth.Params] established by [RFC8414].
* Metadata Name: challenge_endpoint
* Metadata Description: URL of the authorization servers challenge
endpoint which is used to obtain a fresh challenge for usage in
client authentication methods such as client attestation.
* Change Controller: IETF
* Reference: Section 8 of this specification
13.2. OAuth Extensions Error Registration
This specification requests registration of the following values in
the IANA "OAuth Extensions Error Registry" registry of
[IANA.OAuth.Params] established by [RFC6749].
* Name: use_attestation_challenge
* Usage Location: token error response, resource access error
response
Looker, et al. Expires 8 January 2026 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Attestation-Based Client Authe July 2025
* Protocol Extension: OAuth 2.0 Attestation-Based Client
Authentication
* Change Controller: IETF
* Reference: this specification
* Name: invalid_client_attestation
* Usage Location: token error response, resource access error
response
* Protocol Extension: OAuth 2.0 Attestation-Based Client
Authentication
* Change Controller: IETF
* Reference: this specification
13.3. Registration of attest_jwt_client_auth Token Endpoint
Authentication Method
This section registers the value "attest_jwt_client_auth" in the IANA
"OAuth Token Endpoint Authentication Methods" registry established by
OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration Protocol [RFC7591].
* Token Endpoint Authentication Method Name:
"attest_jwt_client_auth"
* Change Controller: IESG
* Specification Document(s): TBC
13.4. HTTP Field Name Registration
This section requests registration of the following scheme in the
"Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Field Name Registry"
[IANA.HTTP.Fields] described in [RFC9110]:
* Field Name: OAuth-Client-Attestation
* Status: permanent
* Reference: Section 6.1 of this specification
* Field Name: OAuth-Client-Attestation-PoP
Looker, et al. Expires 8 January 2026 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Attestation-Based Client Authe July 2025
* Status: permanent
* Reference: Section 6.1 of this specification
* Field Name: OAuth-Client-Attestation-Challenge
* Status: permanent
* Reference: Section 8 of this specification
14. References
14.1. Normative References
[IANA.HTTP.Fields]
IANA, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Field Name
Registry", n.d., <https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-
fields/http-fields.xhtml>.
[IANA.JOSE.ALGS]
IANA, "JSON Web Signature and Encryption Algorithms",
n.d., <https://www.iana.org/assignments/jose/
jose.xhtml#web-signature-encryption-algorithms>.
[IANA.OAuth.Params]
IANA, "OAuth Authorization Server Metadata", n.d.,
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/oauth-parameters/oauth-
parameters.xhtml#authorization-server-metadata>.
[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/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3986>.
[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/rfc/rfc6750>.
Looker, et al. Expires 8 January 2026 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Attestation-Based Client Authe July 2025
[RFC7519] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token
(JWT)", RFC 7519, DOI 10.17487/RFC7519, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7519>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7591>.
[RFC7800] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and H. Tschofenig, "Proof-of-
Possession Key Semantics for JSON Web Tokens (JWTs)",
RFC 7800, DOI 10.17487/RFC7800, April 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7800>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.
[RFC8414] Jones, M., Sakimura, N., and J. Bradley, "OAuth 2.0
Authorization Server Metadata", RFC 8414,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8414, June 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8414>.
[RFC8725] Sheffer, Y., Hardt, D., and M. Jones, "JSON Web Token Best
Current Practices", BCP 225, RFC 8725,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8725, February 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8725>.
[RFC9110] Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke,
Ed., "HTTP Semantics", STD 97, RFC 9110,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9110, June 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110>.
[RFC9112] Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke,
Ed., "HTTP/1.1", STD 99, RFC 9112, DOI 10.17487/RFC9112,
June 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9112>.
14.2. Informative References
[ARF] "The European Digital Identity Wallet Architecture and
Reference Framework", n.d..
[RFC6749] Hardt, D., Ed., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework",
RFC 6749, DOI 10.17487/RFC6749, October 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6749>.
Looker, et al. Expires 8 January 2026 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Attestation-Based Client Authe July 2025
[RFC7523] Jones, M., Campbell, B., and C. Mortimore, "JSON Web Token
(JWT) Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and
Authorization Grants", RFC 7523, DOI 10.17487/RFC7523, May
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7523>.
[RFC9334] Birkholz, H., Thaler, D., Richardson, M., Smith, N., and
W. Pan, "Remote ATtestation procedureS (RATS)
Architecture", RFC 9334, DOI 10.17487/RFC9334, January
2023, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9334>.
[SD-JWT] Fett, D., Yasuda, K., and B. Campbell, "Selective
Disclosure for JWTs (SD-JWT)", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-oauth-selective-disclosure-jwt-22, 29
May 2025, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
ietf-oauth-selective-disclosure-jwt-22>.
Appendix A. Document History
-06
* clarify client_id processing in token request with client
attestation
* clarify usage of client attestation outside of oauth2 applications
* add oauth error response values invalid_client_attestation and
use_attestation_challenge
* revert the HTTP OPTIONS mechanism to fetch nonces and add a
dedicated challenge endpoint
* rename nonce to challenge
* rewrite security consideration on replay attacks
* add implementation consideration on replay attacks
* remove exp from Client Attestation PoP JWT
* add verification and processing rules
-05
* add nonce endpoint
* add metadata entry for nonce
* improve introduction
Looker, et al. Expires 8 January 2026 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Attestation-Based Client Authe July 2025
* rename client backend to client attester
* fix missing typ header in examples
-04
* remove key attestation example
* restructured JWT Claims for better readability
* added JOSE typ values for Client Attestation and Client
Attestation PoP
* add RATS relation
* add concatenated representation without headers
* add PAR endpoint example
* fix PoP examples to include jti and nonce
* add iana http field name registration
-03
* remove usage of RFC7521 and the usage of client_assertion
* add new header-based syntax introducing Oauth-Client-Attestation
and OAuth-Client-Attestation-PoP
* add Client Instance to the terminology and improve text around
this concept
-02
* add text on the inability to rotate the Client Instance Key
-01
* Updated eIDAS example in appendix
* Removed text around jti claim in client attestation, refined text
for its usage in the client attestation pop
* Refined text around cnf claim in client attestation
* Clarified how to bind refresh tokens to a Client Instance using
this client authentication method
Looker, et al. Expires 8 January 2026 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Attestation-Based Client Authe July 2025
* Made it more explicit that the client authentication mechanism is
general purpose making it compatible with extensions like PAR
* Updated acknowledgments
* Simplified the diagram in the introduction
* Updated references
* Added some guidance around replay attack detection
-00
* Initial draft
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Brian Campbell, Filip Skokan, Francesco
Marino, Guiseppe De Marco, Kristina Yasuda, Michael B. Jones,
Takahiko Kawasaki and Torsten Lodderstedt for their valuable
contributions to this specification.
Authors' Addresses
Tobias Looker
MATTR
Email: tobias.looker@mattr.global
Paul Bastian
Bundesdruckerei
Email: paul.bastian@posteo.de
Christian Bormann
SPRIND
Email: chris.bormann@gmx.de
Looker, et al. Expires 8 January 2026 [Page 27]