OAuth 2.0 Token Introspection
draft-ietf-oauth-introspection-09

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (oauth WG)
Last updated 2015-06-11 (latest revision 2015-05-28)
Replaces draft-richer-oauth-introspection
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Proposed Standard
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Document shepherd Hannes Tschofenig
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2015-04-08)
IESG IESG state IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed
Consensus Boilerplate Yes
Telechat date
Needs a YES. Needs 5 more YES or NO OBJECTION positions to pass.
Responsible AD Kathleen Moriarty
Send notices to draft-ietf-oauth-introspection@ietf.org, draft-ietf-oauth-introspection.ad@ietf.org, draft-ietf-oauth-introspection.shepherd@ietf.org, Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net, oauth-chairs@ietf.org
IANA IANA review state IANA OK - Actions Needed
IANA action state None
OAuth Working Group                                       J. Richer, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                              May 28, 2015
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: November 29, 2015

                     OAuth 2.0 Token Introspection
                   draft-ietf-oauth-introspection-09

Abstract

   This specification defines a method for a protected resource to query
   an OAuth 2.0 authorization server to determine the active state of an
   OAuth 2.0 token and to determine meta-information about this token.
   OAuth 2.0 deployments can use this method to convey information about
   the authorization context of the token from the authorization server
   to the protected resource.

Requirements Language

   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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

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 http://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 November 29, 2015.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 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

Richer                  Expires November 29, 2015               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft             oauth-introspection                  May 2015

   (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 Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Introspection Endpoint  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Introspection Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Introspection Response  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.3.  Error Response  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   3.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.1.  OAuth Token Introspection Response Registry . . . . . . .   8
       3.1.1.  Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       3.1.2.  Initial Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   5.  Privacy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Appendix A.  Use with Proof of Posession Tokens . . . . . . . . .  15
   Appendix B.  Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16

1.  Introduction

   In OAuth 2.0, the contents of tokens are opaque to clients.  This
   means that the client does not need to know anything about the
   content or structure of the token itself, if there is any.  However,
   there is still a large amount of metadata that may be attached to a
   token, such as its current validity, approved scopes, and information
   about the context in which the token was issued.  These pieces of
   information are often vital to protected resources making
   authorization decisions based on the tokens being presented.  Since
   OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749] does not define a protocol for the resource
   server to learn meta-information about a token that is has received
   from an authorization server, several different approaches have been
   developed to bridge this gap.  These include using structured token
   formats such as JWT [RFC7519] or proprietary inter-service
   communication mechanisms (such as shared databases and protected
   enterprise service buses) that convey token information.

Richer                  Expires November 29, 2015               [Page 2]
Show full document text