Skip to main content

OAuth 2.0 Rich Authorization Requests
draft-ietf-oauth-rar-22

The information below is for an old version of the document.
Document Type
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Active".
Authors Torsten Lodderstedt , Justin Richer , Brian Campbell
Last updated 2023-01-05 (Latest revision 2022-12-22)
Replaces draft-lodderstedt-oauth-rar
RFC stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Formats
Reviews
OPSDIR Last Call Review Incomplete, due 2022-11-17
Additional resources Mailing list discussion
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Document shepherd Hannes Tschofenig
Shepherd write-up Show Last changed 2022-05-04
IESG IESG state RFC Ed Queue
Consensus boilerplate Yes
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD Roman Danyliw
Send notices to hannes.tschofenig@arm.com, Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net
IANA IANA review state Version Changed - Review Needed
IANA action state Waiting on RFC Editor
IANA expert review state Expert Reviews OK
RFC Editor RFC Editor state EDIT
Details
draft-ietf-oauth-rar-22
Web Authorization Protocol                                T. Lodderstedt
Internet-Draft                                                   yes.com
Intended status: Standards Track                               J. Richer
Expires: 25 June 2023                                Bespoke Engineering
                                                             B. Campbell
                                                           Ping Identity
                                                        22 December 2022

                 OAuth 2.0 Rich Authorization Requests
                        draft-ietf-oauth-rar-22

Abstract

   This document specifies a new parameter authorization_details that is
   used to carry fine-grained authorization data in OAuth messages.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 25 June 2023.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2022 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.

Lodderstedt, et al.       Expires 25 June 2023                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  December 2022

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Request parameter "authorization_details" . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Authorization Details Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     2.2.  Common data fields  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   3.  Authorization Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     3.1.  Relationship to "scope" parameter . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     3.2.  Relationship to "resource" parameter  . . . . . . . . . .  14
   4.  Authorization Response  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   5.  Authorization Error Response  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   6.  Token Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     6.1.  Comparing authorization details . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   7.  Token Response  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     7.1.  Enriched authorization details in Token Response  . . . .  19
   8.  Token Error Response  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   9.  Resource Servers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     9.1.  JWT-based Access Tokens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     9.2.  Token Introspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   10. Metadata  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   11. Implementation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     11.1.  Using authorization details in a certain deployment  . .  27
     11.2.  Minimal implementation support . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
     11.3.  Use of Machine-readable Type Schemas . . . . . . . . . .  28
     11.4.  Large requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
   12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
   13. Privacy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
   14. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
   15. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
     15.1.  OAuth Parameters Registration  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
     15.2.  JSON Web Token Claims Registration . . . . . . . . . . .  31
     15.3.  OAuth Token Introspection Response Registration  . . . .  32
     15.4.  OAuth Authorization Server Metadata Registration . . . .  32
     15.5.  OAuth Dynamic Client Registration Metadata
            Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
     15.6.  OAuth Extensions Error Registration  . . . . . . . . . .  32
   16. Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
   17. Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
   Appendix A.  Additional Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
     A.1.  OpenID Connect  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
     A.2.  Remote Electronic Signing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37
     A.3.  Access to Tax Data  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
     A.4.  eHealth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  39
   Appendix B.  Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  42
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  45

Lodderstedt, et al.       Expires 25 June 2023                  [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  December 2022

1.  Introduction

   The OAuth 2.0 authorization framework [RFC6749] defines the scope
   parameter that allows OAuth clients to specify the requested scope,
   i.e., the limited capability, of an access token.  This mechanism is
   sufficient to implement static scenarios and coarse-grained
   authorization requests, such as "give me read access to the resource
   owner's profile" but it is not sufficient to specify fine-grained
   authorization requirements, such as "please let me transfer an amount
   of 45 Euros to Merchant A" or "please give me read access to
   directory A and write access to file X".

   This specification introduces a new parameter authorization_details
   that allows clients to specify their fine-grained authorization
   requirements using the expressiveness of JSON [RFC8259] data
   structures.

   For example, an authorization request for a credit transfer
   (designated as "payment initiation" in several open banking
   initiatives) can be represented using a JSON object like this:

   {
      "type": "payment_initiation",
      "locations": [
         "https://example.com/payments"
      ],
      "instructedAmount": {
         "currency": "EUR",
         "amount": "123.50"
      },
      "creditorName": "Merchant A",
      "creditorAccount": {
         "bic":"ABCIDEFFXXX",
         "iban": "DE02100100109307118603"
      },
      "remittanceInformationUnstructured": "Ref Number Merchant"
   }

       Figure 1: Example authorization request for a credit transfer.

   This object contains detailed information about the intended payment,
   such as amount, currency, and creditor, that are required to inform
   the user and obtain their consent.  The authorization server (AS) and
   the respective resource server (RS) (providing the payment initiation
   API) will together enforce this consent.

Lodderstedt, et al.       Expires 25 June 2023                  [Page 3]
Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  December 2022

   For a comprehensive discussion of the challenges arising from new use
   cases in the open banking and electronic signing spaces see
   [transaction-authorization].

   In addition to facilitating custom authorization requests, this
   specification also introduces a set of common data type fields for
   use across different APIs.

1.1.  Conventions and Terminology

   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.

   This specification uses the terms "access token", "refresh token",
   "authorization server", "resource server", "authorization endpoint",
   "authorization request", "authorization response", "token endpoint",
   "grant type", "access token request", "access token response", and
   "client" defined by The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework [RFC6749].

2.  Request parameter "authorization_details"

   The request parameter authorization_details contains, in JSON
   notation, an array of objects.  Each JSON object contains the data to
   specify the authorization requirements for a certain type of
   resource.  The type of resource or access requirement is determined
   by the type field, which is defined as follows:

   type:  An identifier for the authorization details type as a string.
      The value of the type field determines the allowable contents of
      the object which contains it and is unique for the described API
      in the context of the AS.  This field is REQUIRED.

   An authorization_details array MAY contain multiple entries of the
   same type.

   This example shows an authorization_details of type
   payment_initiation using the example data shown above:

Lodderstedt, et al.       Expires 25 June 2023                  [Page 4]
Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  December 2022

   [
      {
         "type": "payment_initiation",
         "actions": [
            "initiate",
            "status",
            "cancel"
         ],
         "locations": [
            "https://example.com/payments"
         ],
         "instructedAmount": {
            "currency": "EUR",
            "amount": "123.50"
         },
         "creditorName": "Merchant A",
         "creditorAccount": {
            "iban": "DE02100100109307118603"
         },
         "remittanceInformationUnstructured": "Ref Number Merchant"
      }
   ]

       Figure 2: Example authorization_details for a credit transfer.

   This example shows a combined request asking for access to account
   information and permission to initiate a payment:

Lodderstedt, et al.       Expires 25 June 2023                  [Page 5]
Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  December 2022

   [
      {
         "type": "account_information",
         "actions": [
            "list_accounts",
            "read_balances",
            "read_transactions"
         ],
         "locations": [
            "https://example.com/accounts"
         ]
      },
      {
         "type": "payment_initiation",
         "actions": [
            "initiate",
            "status",
            "cancel"
         ],
         "locations": [
            "https://example.com/payments"
         ],
         "instructedAmount": {
            "currency": "EUR",
            "amount": "123.50"
         },
         "creditorName": "Merchant A",
         "creditorAccount": {
            "iban": "DE02100100109307118603"
         },
         "remittanceInformationUnstructured": "Ref Number Merchant"
      }
   ]

      Figure 3: Example authorization_details for a combined request.

   The JSON objects with type fields of account_information and
   payment_initiation represent the different authorization_details to
   be used by the AS to ask for consent.

   Note: The AS will make this data subsequently available to the
   respective resource servers (see Section 9).

Lodderstedt, et al.       Expires 25 June 2023                  [Page 6]
Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  December 2022

2.1.  Authorization Details Types

   Interpretation of the value of the type parameter, and the object
   fields that the type parameter allows, is under the control of the
   AS.  However, the value of the type parameter is also generally
   documented and intended to be used by developers, it is RECOMMENDED
   that API designers choose type values that are easily copied without
   ambiguity.  For example, some glyphs have multiple Unicode code
   points for the same visual character, and a developer could
   potentially type a different character than what the AS has defined.
   Possible means of reducing potential confusion are limiting the value
   to ASCII [RFC0020] characters, providing a machine-readable listing
   of data type values, or instructing developers to copy and paste
   directly from the documentation.

   If an application or API is expected to be deployed across different
   servers, such as the case in an open standard, the API designer is
   RECOMMENDED to use a collision-resistant namespace under their
   control, such as a URI that the API designer controls.

   The following example shows how an implementation could utilize the
   namespace https://scheme.example.org/ to ensure collision-resistant
   type values.

   {
      "type": "https://scheme.example.org/files",
      "locations": [
         "https://example.com/files"
      ],
      "permissions": [
         {
            "path": "/myfiles/A",
            "access": [
               "read"
            ]
         },
         {
            "path": "/myfiles/A/X",
            "access": [
               "read",
               "write"
            ]
         }
      ]
   }

       Figure 4: Example for authorization_details with a URL as type
                                identifier.

Lodderstedt, et al.       Expires 25 June 2023                  [Page 7]
Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  December 2022

2.2.  Common data fields

   This specification defines a set of common data fields that are
   designed to be usable across different types of APIs.  This
   specification does not require the use of these common fields by an
   API definition, but instead provides them as reusable generic
   components for API designers to make use of.  The allowable values of
   all fields are determined by the API being protected, as defined by a
   particular "type" value.

   locations:  An array of strings representing the location of the
      resource or resource server.  These strings are typically URIs
      identifying the location of the RS.  This field can allow a client
      to specify a particular RS, as discussed in Section 12.
   actions:  An array of strings representing the kinds of actions to be
      taken at the resource.
   datatypes:  An array of strings representing the kinds of data being
      requested from the resource.
   identifier:  A string identifier indicating a specific resource
      available at the API.
   privileges:  An array of strings representing the types or levels of
      privilege being requested at the resource.

   When different common data fields are used in combination, the
   permissions the client requests are the product of all the values.
   The object represents a request for all action values listed within
   the object to be used at all locations values listed within the
   object for all datatype values listed within the object.  In the
   following example, the client is requesting read and write access to
   both the contacts and photos belonging to customers in a
   customer_information API.  If this request is granted, the client
   would assume it would be able to use any combination of rights
   defined by the API, such as reading the photos and writing the
   contacts.

Lodderstedt, et al.       Expires 25 June 2023                  [Page 8]
Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  December 2022

   [
      {
         "type": "customer_information",
         "locations": [
            "https://example.com/customers"
         ],
         "actions": [
            "read",
            "write"
         ],
         "datatypes": [
            "contacts",
            "photos"
         ]
      }
   ]

    Figure 5: Example for authorization_details with common data fields.

   If the client wishes to have finer control over its access, it can
   send multiple objects.  In this example, the client is asking for
   read access to the contacts and write access to the photos in the
   same API endpoint.  If this request is granted, the client would not
   be able to write to the contacts.

Lodderstedt, et al.       Expires 25 June 2023                  [Page 9]
Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  December 2022

   [
      {
         "type": "customer_information",
         "locations": [
            "https://example.com/customers"
         ],
         "actions": [
            "read"
         ],
         "datatypes": [
            "contacts"
         ]
      },
      {
         "type": "customer_information",
         "locations": [
            "https://example.com/customers"
         ],
         "actions": [
            "write"
         ],
         "datatypes": [
            "photos"
         ]
      }
   ]

        Figure 6: Example for authorization_details with common data
                        fields in multiple objects.

   An API MAY define its own extensions, subject to the type of the
   respective authorization object.  It is anticipated that API
   designers will use a combination of common data fields defined in
   this specification as well as fields specific to the API itself.  The
   following non-normative example shows the use of both common and API-
   specific fields as part of two different fictitious API type values.
   The first access request includes the actions, locations, and
   datatypes fields specified here as well as the API-specific
   geolocation field, indicating access to photos taken at the given
   coordinates.  The second access request includes the actions and
   identifier fields specified here as well as the API-specific currency
   fields.

Lodderstedt, et al.       Expires 25 June 2023                 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  December 2022

   [
      {
         "type":"photo-api",
         "actions":[
            "read",
            "write"
         ],
         "locations":[
            "https://server.example.net/",
            "https://resource.local/other"
         ],
         "datatypes":[
            "metadata",
            "images"
         ],
         "geolocation":[
            {
               "lat":-32.364,
               "lng":153.207
            },
            {
               "lat":-35.364,
               "lng":158.207
            }
         ]
      },
      {
         "type":"financial-transaction",
         "actions":[
            "withdraw"
         ],
         "identifier":"account-14-32-32-3",
         "currency":"USD"
      }
   ]

        Figure 7: Example for authorization_details using common and
                           extension data fields.

   If this request is approved, the resulting access token's access
   rights will be the union of the requested types of access for each of
   the two APIs, just as above.

3.  Authorization Request

   The authorization_details authorization request parameter can be used
   to specify authorization requirements in all places where the scope
   parameter is used for the same purpose, examples include:

Lodderstedt, et al.       Expires 25 June 2023                 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  December 2022

   *  Authorization requests as specified in [RFC6749],
   *  Device Authorization Request as specified in [RFC8628],
   *  Backchannel Authentication Requests as defined in [OpenID.CIBA].

   In case of authorization requests as defined in [RFC6749],
   implementors MAY consider using pushed authorization requests
   [RFC9126] to improve the security, privacy, and reliability of the
   flow.  See Section 12, Section 13, and Section 11.4 for details.

   Parameter encoding is determined by the respective context.  In the
   context of an authorization request according to [RFC6749], the
   parameter is encoded using the application/x-www-form-urlencoded
   format of the serialized JSON as shown in the following using the
   example from Section 2 (line breaks for display purposes only):

  GET /authorize?response_type=code
     &client_id=s6BhdRkqt3
     &state=af0ifjsldkj
     &redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fclient.example.org%2Fcb
     &code_challenge_method=S256
     &code_challenge=K2-ltc83acc4h0c9w6ESC_rEMTJ3bwc-uCHaoeK1t8U
     &authorization_details=%5B%7B%22type%22%3A%22account%5Finfo
     rmation%22%2C%22actions%22%3A%5B%22list%5Faccounts%22%2C%22
     read%5Fbalances%22%2C%22read%5Ftransactions%22%5D%2C%22loca
     tions%22%3A%5B%22https%3A%2F%2Fexample%2Ecom%2Faccounts%22%
     5D%7D%2C%7B%22type%22%3A%22payment%5Finitiation%22%2C%22act
     ions%22%3A%5B%22initiate%22%2C%22status%22%2C%22cancel%22%5
     D%2C%22locations%22%3A%5B%22https%3A%2F%2Fexample%2Ecom%2Fp
     ayments%22%5D%2C%22instructedAmount%22%3A%7B%22currency%22%
     3A%22EUR%22%2C%22amount%22%3A%22123%2E50%22%7D%2C%22credito
     rName%22%3A%22Merchant%20A%22%2C%22creditorAccount%22%3A%7B%
     22iban%22%3A%22DE02100100109307118603%22%7D%2C%22remittance
     InformationUnstructured%22%3A%22RefNumberMerchant%22%7D%5D HTTP/1.1
  Host: server.example.com

   Figure 8: Example authorization request with authorization_details.

   Based on the data provided in the authorization_details parameter the
   AS will ask the user for consent to the requested access permissions.

   Note: the user may also grant a subset of the requested authorization
   details.

   In this example, the client wants to get access to account
   information and initiate a payment:

Lodderstedt, et al.       Expires 25 June 2023                 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  December 2022

   [
      {
         "type": "account_information",
         "actions": [
            "list_accounts",
            "read_balances",
            "read_transactions"
         ],
         "locations": [
            "https://example.com/accounts"
         ]
      },
      {
         "type": "payment_initiation",
         "actions": [
            "initiate",
            "status",
            "cancel"
         ],
         "locations": [
            "https://example.com/payments"
         ],
         "instructedAmount": {
            "currency": "EUR",
            "amount": "123.50"
         },
         "creditorName": "Merchant A",
         "creditorAccount": {
            "iban": "DE02100100109307118603"
         },
         "remittanceInformationUnstructured": "Ref Number Merchant"
      }
   ]

                Figure 9: URL decoded authorization_details.

3.1.  Relationship to "scope" parameter

   authorization_details and scope can be used in the same authorization
   request for carrying independent authorization requirements.

   Combined use of authorization_details and scope is supported by this
   specification in part to allow existing OAuth-based applications to
   incrementally migrate towards using authorization_details
   exclusively.  It is RECOMMENDED that a given API use only one form of
   requirement specification.

Lodderstedt, et al.       Expires 25 June 2023                 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  December 2022

   The AS MUST process both sets of requirements in combination with
   each other for the given authorization request.  The details of how
   the AS combines these parameters are specific to the APIs being
   protected and outside the scope of this specification.

   When gathering user consent, the AS MUST present the merged set of
   requirements represented by the authorization request.

   If the resource owner grants the client the requested access, the AS
   will issue tokens to the client that are associated with the
   respective authorization_details (and scope values, if applicable).

3.2.  Relationship to "resource" parameter

   The resource authorization request parameter as defined in [RFC8707]
   can be used to further determine the resources where the requested
   scope can be applied.  The resource parameter does not have any
   impact on the way the AS processes the authorization_details
   authorization request parameter.

4.  Authorization Response

   This specification does not define extensions to the authorization
   response.

5.  Authorization Error Response

   The AS MUST refuse to process any unknown authorization details type
   or authorization details not conforming to the respective type
   definition.  The AS MUST abort processing and respond with an error
   invalid_authorization_details to the client if any of the following
   are true of the objects in authorization_details structure:

   *  Contains an unknown authorization details type value,
   *  An object of known type but containing unknown fields,
   *  Contains fields of the wrong type for the authorization details
      type,
   *  Contains fields with invalid values for the authorization details
      type, or
   *  Missing required fields for the authorization details type.

Lodderstedt, et al.       Expires 25 June 2023                 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  December 2022

6.  Token Request

   The authorization_details token request parameter can be used to
   specify the authorization details a client wants the AS to assign to
   an access token.  The AS checks whether the underlying grant (in case
   of grant types authorization_code, refresh_token, ...) or the
   client's policy (in case of grant type client_credential) allows the
   issuance of an access token with the requested authorization details.
   Otherwise, the AS refuses the request with the error code
   invalid_authorization_details (similar to invalid_scope).

6.1.  Comparing authorization details

   Many actions in the OAuth protocol allow the AS and RS to make
   security decisions based on whether the request is asking for "more"
   or "less" than a previous, existing request.  For example, upon
   refreshing a token, the client can ask for a new access token with
   "fewer permissions" than had been previously authorized by the
   resource owner.  The requested access token will convey the reduced
   permissions but the resource owner's previous authorization is
   unchanged by such requests.  Since the semantics of the fields in the
   authorization_details will be implementation specific to a given API
   or set of APIs, there is no standardized mechanism to compare two
   arbitrary authorization detail requests.  Authorization servers
   should not rely on simple object comparison in most cases, as the
   intersection of some fields within a request could have side effects
   on the access rights granted, depending on how the API has been
   designed and deployed.  This is a similar effect to the scope values
   used with some APIs.

   When comparing a new request to an existing request, authorization
   servers can use the same processing techniques as used in granting
   the request in the first place to determine if a resource owner needs
   to authorize the request.  The details of this comparison are
   dependent on the definition of the type of authorization request and
   outside the scope of this specification, but common patterns can be
   applied.

   This shall be illustrated using our running example.  The example
   authorization request in Section 3, if approved by the user, resulted
   in the issuance of an authorization code associated with the
   privileges to

   *  list accounts
   *  access the balance of one or more accounts,
   *  access the transactions of one or more accounts, and
   *  to initiate, check the status of, and cancel a payment.

Lodderstedt, et al.       Expires 25 June 2023                 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  December 2022

   The client could now request the AS to issue an access token assigned
   with the privilege to just access a list of accounts as follows:

   [
      {
         "type": "account_information",
         "actions": [
            "list_accounts"
         ],
         "locations": [
            "https://example.com/accounts"
         ]
      }
   ]

      Figure 10: Example for authorization_details reduced privileges.

   The example API is designed such that each field used by the
   account_information type contains additive rights, with each value
   within the actions and locations arrays specifying a different
   element of access.  To make a comparison in this instance, the AS
   would perform the following steps:

   *  compare that the authorization code issued in the previous step
      contains an authorization details object of type
      account_information
   *  compare whether the approved list of actions contains
      list_account, and
   *  whether the locations value includes only previously-approved
      locations.

   If all checks succeed, the AS would issue the requested access token
   with the reduced set of access.

   Note that this comparison is relevant to this specific API type
   definition.  A different API type definition could have different
   processing rules.  For example, the value of an action could subsume
   the rights associated with another action value.  For example, if a
   client initially asks for a token with write access, which implies
   both read and write access to this API:

Lodderstedt, et al.       Expires 25 June 2023                 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  December 2022

   [
       {
           "type": "example_api",
           "actions": [
               "write"
           ]
       }
   ]

      Figure 11: Example for authorization_details requesting "write"
                             access to an API.

   Later that same client makes a refresh request for read access:

   [
       {
           "type": "example_api",
           "actions": [
               "read"
           ]
       }
   ]

       Figure 12: Example for authorization_details requesting "read"
                             access to an API.

   The AS would compare the type value and the action value to determine
   that the read access is already covered by the write access
   previously granted to the client.

   This same API could be designed with a possible value for privileges
   of admin, used in this example to denote that the resulting token is
   allowed to perform any functions on the resources.  If that client is
   then granted such admin privileges to the API:

   [
       {
           "type": "example_api",
           "privileges": [
               "admin"
           ]
       }
   ]

      Figure 13: Example for authorization_details requesting "admin"
                             access to an API.

Lodderstedt, et al.       Expires 25 June 2023                 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  December 2022

   The AS would compare the type value and find the privileges value
   subsumes any aspects of read or write access that had been granted to
   the client previously.  Note that other API definitions can use
   privileges such that values do not subsume one another.

   The next example shows how the client can use the common data element
   locations (see Section 2.2) to request the issuance of an access
   token restricted to a certain resource server.  In our running
   example, the client may ask for all permissions of the approved grant
   of type payment_iniation applicable to the resource server residing
   at https://example.com/payments as follows:

   [
      {
         "type": "payment_initiation",
         "locations": [
            "https://example.com/payments"
         ]
      }
   ]

         Figure 14: Example for authorization_details requesting an
                     audience restricted access token.

7.  Token Response

   In addition to the token response parameters as defined in [RFC6749],
   the authorization server MUST also return the authorization_details
   as granted by the resource owner and assigned to the respective
   access token.

   The authorization details assigned to the access token issued in a
   token response are determined by the authorization_details parameter
   of the corresponding token request.  If the client does not specify
   the authorization_details token request parameters, the AS determines
   the resulting authorization_details at its discretion.

   The AS MAY omit values in the authorization_details to the client.

   For our running example, this would look like this:

Lodderstedt, et al.       Expires 25 June 2023                 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  December 2022

   HTTP/1.1 200 OK
   Content-Type: application/json
   Cache-Control: no-store

   {
      "access_token": "2YotnFZFEjr1zCsicMWpAA",
      "token_type": "example",
      "expires_in": 3600,
      "refresh_token": "tGzv3JOkF0XG5Qx2TlKWIA",
      "authorization_details": [
         {
            "type": "payment_initiation",
            "actions": [
               "initiate",
               "status",
               "cancel"
            ],
            "locations": [
               "https://example.com/payments"
            ],
            "instructedAmount": {
               "currency": "EUR",
               "amount": "123.50"
            },
            "creditorName": "Merchant A",
            "creditorAccount": {
               "iban": "DE02100100109307118603"
            },
            "remittanceInformationUnstructured": "Ref Number Merchant"
         }
      ]
   }

                     Figure 15: Example token response.

7.1.  Enriched authorization details in Token Response

   The authorization details attached to the access token MAY differ
   from what the client requests.  In addition to the user authorizing
   less than what the client requested, there are some use cases where
   the authorization server enriches the data in an authorization
   details object.  Whether enrichment is allowed and specifics of how
   it works are necessarily part of the definition of the respective
   authorization details type.

   As one example, a client may ask for access to account information
   but leave the decision about the specific accounts it will be able to
   access to the user.  The user would, during the course of the

Lodderstedt, et al.       Expires 25 June 2023                 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  December 2022

   authorization process, select the subset of their accounts that they
   want to allow the client to access.  As one design option to convey
   the selected accounts, the authorization server could add this
   information to the respective authorization details object.

   In that example, the requested authorization detail parameter might
   look like the following.  In this example the empty arrays serve as
   placeholders for where data will be added during enrichment by the
   AS.  This example is illustrative only and is not intended to suggest
   a preference for designing the specifics of any authorization details
   type this way.

   "authorization_details": [
      {
         "type": "account_information",
         "access": {
            "accounts": [],
            "balances": [],
            "transactions": []
         },
         "recurringIndicator":true
      }
   ]

          Figure 16: Example for requested authorization_details.

   The authorization server then would expand the authorization details
   object and add the respective account identifiers.

Lodderstedt, et al.       Expires 25 June 2023                 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  December 2022

   HTTP/1.1 200 OK
   Content-Type: application/json
   Cache-Control: no-store

   {
      "access_token":"2YotnFZFEjr1zCsicMWpAA",
      "token_type":"example",
      "expires_in":3600,
      "refresh_token":"tGzv3JokF0XG5Qx2TlKWIA",
      "authorization_details":[
         {
            "type":"account_information",
            "access":{
               "accounts":[
                  {
                     "iban":"DE2310010010123456789"
                  },
                  {
                     "maskedPan":"123456xxxxxx1234"
                  }
               ],
               "balances":[
                  {
                     "iban":"DE2310010010123456789"
                  }
               ],
               "transactions":[
                  {
                     "iban":"DE2310010010123456789"
                  },
                  {
                     "maskedPan":"123456xxxxxx1234"
                  }
               ]
            },
            "recurringIndicator":true
         }
      ]
   }

           Figure 17: Example for enriched authorization_details.

   For another example, the client is asking for access to a medical
   record but does not know the record number at request time.  In this
   example, the client specifies the type of access it wants but doesn't
   specify the location or identifier of that access.

Lodderstedt, et al.       Expires 25 June 2023                 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  December 2022

   {
   "authorization_details": [
      {
         "type": "medical_record",
         "sens": [ "HIV", "ETH", "MART" ],
         "actions": [ "read" ],
         "datatypes": [ "Patient", "Observation", "Appointment" ]
      }
   ]}

          Figure 18: Example for requested authorization_details.

   When the user interacts with the AS, they select which of the medical
   records they are responsible for giving to the client.  This
   information gets returned with the access token.

   {
      "access_token":"2YotnFZFEjr1zCsicMWpAA",
      "token_type":"example",
      "expires_in":3600,
      "refresh_token":"tGzv3JokF0XG5Qx2TlKWIA",
      "authorization_details":[
       {
         "type": "medical_record",
         "sens": [ "HIV", "ETH", "MART" ],
         "actions": [ "read" ],
         "datatypes": [ "Patient", "Observation", "Appointment" ],
         "identifier": "patient-541235",
         "locations": [ "https://records.example.com/" ]
        }
     ]
   }

           Figure 19: Example for enriched authorization_details.

   Note: the client needs to be aware upfront of the possibility that a
   certain authorization details object can be enriched.  It is assumed
   that this property is part of the definition of the respective
   authorization details type.

8.  Token Error Response

   The Token Error Response MUST conform to the rules given in
   Section 5.

Lodderstedt, et al.       Expires 25 June 2023                 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  December 2022

9.  Resource Servers

   In order to enable the RS to enforce the authorization details as
   approved in the authorization process, the AS MUST make this data
   available to the RS.  The AS MAY add the authorization_details field
   to access tokens in JWT format or to Token Introspection responses.

9.1.  JWT-based Access Tokens

   If the access token is a JWT [RFC7519], the AS is RECOMMENDED to add
   the authorization_details object, filtered to the specific audience,
   as a top-level claim.

   The AS will typically also add further claims to the JWT the RS
   requires for request processing, e.g., user id, roles, and
   transaction-specific data.  What claims the particular RS requires is
   defined by the RS-specific policy with the AS.

   The following shows the contents of an example JWT for the payment
   initiation example above:

Lodderstedt, et al.       Expires 25 June 2023                 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  December 2022

   {
      "iss": "https://as.example.com",
      "sub": "24400320",
      "aud": "a7AfcPcsl2",
      "exp": 1311281970,
      "acr": "psd2_sca",
      "txn": "8b4729cc-32e4-4370-8cf0-5796154d1296",
      "authorization_details": [
         {
            "type": "https://scheme.example.com/payment_initiation",
            "actions": [
               "initiate",
               "status",
               "cancel"
            ],
            "locations": [
               "https://example.com/payments"
            ],
            "instructedAmount": {
               "currency": "EUR",
               "amount": "123.50"
            },
            "creditorName": "Merchant A",
            "creditorAccount": {
               "iban": "DE02100100109307118603"
            },
            "remittanceInformationUnstructured": "Ref Number Merchant"
         }
      ],
      "debtorAccount": {
         "iban": "DE40100100103307118608",
         "user_role": "owner"
      }
   }

      Figure 20: Example for authorization_details in JWT-based access
                                   token.

   In this case, the AS added the following example claims to the JWT-
   based access token:

   *  sub: conveys the user on which behalf the client is asking for
      payment initiation
   *  txn: transaction id used to trace the transaction across the
      services of provider example.com
   *  debtorAccount: API-specific field containing the debtor account.
      In the example, this account was not passed in the
      authorization_details but selected by the user during the

Lodderstedt, et al.       Expires 25 June 2023                 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  December 2022

      authorization process.  The field user_role conveys the role the
      user has with respect to this particular account.  In this case,
      they are the owner.  This data is used for access control at the
      payment API (the RS).

9.2.  Token Introspection

   Token introspection [RFC7662] provides a means for an RS to query the
   AS to determine information about an access token.  If the AS
   includes authorization detail information for the token in its
   response, the information MUST be conveyed with authorization_details
   as a top-level member of the introspection response JSON object.  The
   authorization_details member MUST contain the same structure defined
   in Section 2, potentially filtered and extended for the RS making the
   introspection request.

   Here is an example introspection response for the payment initiation
   example:

Lodderstedt, et al.       Expires 25 June 2023                 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  December 2022

   {
      "active": true,
      "sub": "24400320",
      "aud": "s6BhdRkqt3",
      "exp": 1311281970,
      "acr": "psd2_sca",
      "txn": "8b4729cc-32e4-4370-8cf0-5796154d1296",
      "authorization_details": [
         {
            "type": "https://scheme.example.com/payment_initiation",
            "actions": [
               "initiate",
               "status",
               "cancel"
            ],
            "locations": [
               "https://example.com/payments"
            ],
            "instructedAmount": {
               "currency": "EUR",
               "amount": "123.50"
            },
            "creditorName": "Merchant123",
            "creditorAccount": {
               "iban": "DE02100100109307118603"
            },
            "remittanceInformationUnstructured": "Ref Number Merchant"
         }
      ],
      "debtorAccount": {
         "iban": "DE40100100103307118608",
         "user_role": "owner"
      }
   }

       Figure 21: Example for authorization_details in introspection
                                 response.

10.  Metadata

   To advertise its support for this feature, the supported list of
   authorization details types is included in the AS metadata response
   [RFC8414] using the metadata parameter
   authorization_details_types_supported, which is a JSON array.

   This is illustrated by the following example:

Lodderstedt, et al.       Expires 25 June 2023                 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  December 2022

   {
      ...
      "authorization_details_types_supported":[
         "payment_initiation",
         "account_information"
      ]
   }

         Figure 22: Example for server metadata about the supported
                           authorization details.

   Clients MAY indicate the authorization details types they will use
   when requesting authorization with the client registration metadata
   parameter authorization_details_types, which is a JSON array.

   This is illustrated by the following example:

   {
      ...
      "authorization_details_types":[
         "payment_initiation"
      ]
   }

    Figure 23: Example for server metadata about authorization details.

   The registration of authorization details types with the AS is out of
   scope of this specification.

11.  Implementation Considerations

11.1.  Using authorization details in a certain deployment

   Using authorization details in a certain deployment will require the
   following steps:

   *  Define authorization details types
   *  Publish authorization details types in the OAuth server metadata
   *  Determine how authorization details are shown to the user in the
      user consent prompt
   *  (if needed) Enrich authorization details in the user consent
      process (e.g. add selected accounts or set expirations)
   *  (if needed) Determine how authorization details are reflected in
      access token content or introspection responses
   *  Determine how the resource server(s) process(s) the authorization
      details or token data derived from authorization details
   *  (if needed) Entitle clients to use certain authorization details
      types

Lodderstedt, et al.       Expires 25 June 2023                 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  December 2022

11.2.  Minimal implementation support

   General authorization server implementations supporting this
   specification should provide the following basic functions:

   *  Support advertisement of supported authorization details types in
      OAuth server metadata
   *  Accept authorization_details parameter in authorization requests
      in conformance with this specification
   *  Support storage of consented authorization details as part of a
      grant
   *  Implement default behavior for adding authorization details to
      access tokens and token introspection responses in order to make
      them available to resource servers (similar to scope values).
      This should work with any grant type, especially
      authorization_code and refresh_token.

   Processing and presentation of authorization details will vary
   significantly among different authorization details types.
   Implementations should therefore support customization of the
   respective behavior.  In particular, implementations should:

   *  allow deployments to determine presentation of the authorization
      details
   *  allow deployments to modify requested authorization details in the
      user consent process, e.g. adding fields
   *  allow deployments to merge requested and pre-existing
      authorization details

   One approach to supporting such customization would be to have a
   mechanism allowing the registration of extension modules, each of
   them responsible for rendering the respective user consent and any
   transformation needed to provide the data needed to the resource
   server by way of structured access tokens or token introspection
   responses.

11.3.  Use of Machine-readable Type Schemas

   Implementations might allow deployments to use machine-readable
   schema languages for defining authorization details types to
   facilitate creating and validating authorization details objects
   against such schemas.  For example, if an authorization details type
   were defined using JSON Schemas [JSON.Schema], the JSON Schema
   identifier could be used as type value in the respective
   authorization details objects.

Lodderstedt, et al.       Expires 25 June 2023                 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  December 2022

   Note however that type values are identifiers understood by the AS
   and, to the extent necessary, the client and RS.  This specification
   makes no assumption that a type value point to a machine-readable
   schema format, or that any party in the system (such as the client,
   AS, or RS) dereference or process the contents of the type field in
   any specific way.

11.4.  Large requests

   Authorization request URIs containing authorization_details in a
   request parameter or a request object can become very long.
   Implementers should therefore consider using the request_uri
   parameter as defined in [RFC9101] in combination with the pushed
   request object mechanism as defined in [RFC9126] to pass
   authorization_details in a reliable and secure manner.  Here is an
   example of such a pushed authorization request that sends the
   authorization request data directly to the AS via an HTTPS-protected
   connection:

     POST /as/par HTTP/1.1
     Host: as.example.com
     Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
     Authorization: Basic czZCaGRSa3F0Mzo3RmpmcDBaQnIxS3REUmJuZlZkbUl3

     response_type=code&
     client_id=s6BhdRkqt3
     &state=af0ifjsldkj
     &redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fclient.example.org%2Fcb
     &code_challenge_method=S256
     &code_challenge=K2-ltc83acc4h0c9w6ESC_rEMTJ3bwc-uCHaoeK1t8U
     &authorization_details=%5B%7B%22type%22%3A%22account_information%22
     %2C%22actions%22%3A%5B%22list_accounts%22%2C%22read_balances%22%2C%
     22read_transactions%22%5D%2C%22locations%22%3A%5B%22https%3A%2F%2Fe
     xample.com%2Faccounts%22%5D%7D%2C%7B%22type%22%3A%22payment_initiat
     ion%22%2C%22actions%22%3A%5B%22initiate%22%2C%22status%22%2C%22canc
     el%22%5D%2C%22locations%22%3A%5B%22https%3A%2F%2Fexample.com%2Fpaym
     ents%22%5D%2C%22instructedAmount%22%3A%7B%22currency%22%3A%22EUR%22
     %2C%22amount%22%3A%22123.50%22%7D%2C%22creditorName%22%3A%22Merchan
     t123%22%2C%22creditorAccount%22%3A%7B%22iban%22%3A%22DE021001001093
     07118603%22%7D%2C%22remittanceInformationUnstructured%22%3A%22Ref%2
     0Number%20Merchant%22%7D%5D

   Figure 24: Example for large request including authorization_details.

Lodderstedt, et al.       Expires 25 June 2023                 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  December 2022

12.  Security Considerations

   The authorization_details parameter is sent through the user agent in
   case of an OAuth authorization request, which makes them vulnerable
   to modifications by the user.  If integrity of the
   authorization_details is a concern, clients MUST protect
   authorization_details against tampering and swapping.  This can be
   achieved by signing the request using signed request objects as
   defined in [RFC9101] or using the request_uri authorization request
   parameter as defined in [RFC9101] in conjunction with [RFC9126] to
   pass the URI of the request object to the authorization server.

   All string comparisons in an authorization_details parameter are to
   be done as defined by [RFC8259].  No additional transformation or
   normalization is to be done in evaluating equivalence of string
   values.

   The common data field locations allows a client to specify where it
   intends to use a certain authorization, i.e., it is possible to
   unambiguously assign permissions to resource servers.  In situations
   with multiple resource servers, this prevents unintended client
   authorizations (e.g. a read scope value potentially applicable for an
   email as well as a cloud service) through audience restriction.

   The AS MUST properly sanitized and handle the data passed in the
   authorization_details in order to prevent injection attacks.

   The Security Considerations of [RFC6749], [RFC7662], and [RFC8414]
   also apply.

13.  Privacy Considerations

   It is especially important for implementers to design and use
   authorization details in a privacy-preserving manner.

   Any sensitive personal data included in authorization_details must be
   prevented from leaking, e.g., through referrer headers.
   Implementation options include encrypted request objects as defined
   in [RFC9101] or transmission of authorization_details via end-to-end
   encrypted connections between client and authorization server by
   utilizing [RFC9126] and the request_uri authorization request
   parameter as defined in [RFC9101].  The latter does not require
   application level encryption but it requires another message exchange
   between client and AS.

   Even if the request data is encrypted, an attacker could use the
   authorization server to learn the user's data by injecting the
   encrypted request data into an authorization request on a device

Lodderstedt, et al.       Expires 25 June 2023                 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  December 2022

   under their control and use the authorization server's user consent
   screens to show the (decrypted) user data in the clear.
   Implementations need to consider this attack vector and implement
   appropriate countermeasures, e.g. by only showing portions of the
   data or, if possible, determining whether the assumed user context is
   still the same (after user authentication).

   The AS needs to take into consideration the privacy implications when
   sharing authorization_details with the client or resource servers.
   The AS should share this data with those parties on a "need to know"
   basis as determined by local policy.

14.  Acknowledgements

   We would like to thank Daniel Fett, Sebastian Ebling, Dave Tonge,
   Mike Jones, Nat Sakimura, and Rob Otto for their valuable feedback
   during the preparation of this specification.

   We would also like to thank Vladimir Dzhuvinov, Takahiko Kawasaki,
   Daniel Fett, Dave Tonge, Travis Spencer, Joergen Binningsboe, Aamund
   Bremer, Steinar Noem, Francis Pouatcha, Jacob Ideskog, Hannes
   Tschofenig, and Aaron Parecki for their valuable feedback to this
   specification.

15.  IANA Considerations

15.1.  OAuth Parameters Registration

   This specification requests registration of the following parameter
   in the "OAuth Parameters" registry [IANA.OAuth.Parameters]
   established by [RFC6749].

   Name:  authorization_details
   Parameter Usage Location:  authorization request, token request,
      token response
   Change Controller:  IETF
   Specification Document(s):  [[ this document ]]

15.2.  JSON Web Token Claims Registration

   This specification requests registration of the following value in
   the IANA "JSON Web Token Claims" registry established by [RFC7519].

   Claim Name:  authorization_details
   Claim Description:  The claim authorization_details contains a JSON
      array of JSON objects representing the rights of the access token.
      Each JSON object contains the data to specify the authorization
      requirements for a certain type of resource.

Lodderstedt, et al.       Expires 25 June 2023                 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  December 2022

   Change Controller:  IETF
   Specification Document(s):  Section 9.1 of [[ this document ]]

15.3.  OAuth Token Introspection Response Registration

   This specification requests registration of the following value in
   the IANA "OAuth Token Introspection Response" registry established by
   [RFC7662].

   Name:  authorization_details
   Description:  The member authorization_details contains a JSON array
      of JSON objects representing the rights of the access token.  Each
      JSON object contains the data to specify the authorization
      requirements for a certain type of resource.
   Change Controller:  IETF
   Specification Document(s):  Section 9.2 of [[ this document ]]

15.4.  OAuth Authorization Server Metadata Registration

   This specification requests registration of the following values in
   the IANA "OAuth Authorization Server Metadata" registry of
   [IANA.OAuth.Parameters] established by [RFC8414].

   Metadata Name:  authorization_details_types_supported
   Metadata Description:  JSON array containing the authorization
      details types the AS supports
   Change Controller:  IETF
   Specification Document(s):  Section 10 of [[ this document ]]

15.5.  OAuth Dynamic Client Registration Metadata Registration

   This specification requests registration of the following value in
   the IANA "OAuth Dynamic Client Registration Metadata" registry of
   [IANA.OAuth.Parameters] established by [RFC7591].

   Metadata Name:  authorization_details_types
   Metadata Description:  Indicates what authorization details types the
      client uses.
   Change Controller:  IETF
   Specification Document(s):  Section 10 of [[ this document ]]

15.6.  OAuth Extensions Error Registration

   This specification requests registration of the following value in
   the IANA "OAuth Extensions Error" registry of [IANA.OAuth.Parameters]
   established by [RFC6749].

   Error name:  invalid_authorization_details

Lodderstedt, et al.       Expires 25 June 2023                 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  December 2022

   Error usage location:  token endpoint, authorization endpoint
   Related protocol extension:  OAuth 2.0 Rich Authorization Requests
   Change Controller:  IETF
   Reference:  Section 5 of [[ this document ]]

16.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [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/info/rfc7519>.

   [RFC7662]  Richer, J., Ed., "OAuth 2.0 Token Introspection",
              RFC 7662, DOI 10.17487/RFC7662, October 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7662>.

   [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/info/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/info/rfc8414>.

   [RFC8628]  Denniss, W., Bradley, J., Jones, M., and H. Tschofenig,
              "OAuth 2.0 Device Authorization Grant", RFC 8628,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8628, August 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8628>.

   [RFC8707]  Campbell, B., Bradley, J., and H. Tschofenig, "Resource
              Indicators for OAuth 2.0", RFC 8707, DOI 10.17487/RFC8707,
              February 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8707>.

17.  Informative References

   [CSC]      Consortium, C. S., "Architectures and protocols for remote
              signature applications", 1 June 2019,
              <https://cloudsignatureconsortium.org/wp-
              content/uploads/2019/07/CSC_API_V1_1.0.4.0.pdf>.

   [ETSI]     ETSI, "ETSI TS 119 432, Electronic Signatures and
              Infrastructures (ESI); Protocols for remote digital
              signature creation", 20 March 2019,

Lodderstedt, et al.       Expires 25 June 2023                 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  December 2022

              <https://www.etsi.org/deliver/
              etsi_ts/119400_119499/119432/01.01.01_60/
              ts_119432v010101p.pdf>.

   [IANA.OAuth.Parameters]
              IANA, "OAuth Parameters",
              <https://www.iana.org/assignments/oauth-parameters>.

   [JSON.Schema]
              json-schema.org, "JSON Schema",
              <https://json-schema.org/>.

   [OIDC]     Sakimura, N., Bradley, J., Jones, M., de Medeiros, B., and
              C. Mortimore, "OpenID Connect Core 1.0 incorporating
              errata set 1", 8 November 2014,
              <https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html>.

   [OpenID.CIBA]
              Fernandez, G., Walter, F., Nennker, A., Tonge, D., and B.
              Campbell, "OpenID Connect Client Initiated Backchannel
              Authentication Flow - Core 1.0", 16 January 2019,
              <https://openid.net/specs/openid-client-initiated-
              backchannel-authentication-core-1_0.html>.

   [RFC0020]  Cerf, V., "ASCII format for network interchange", STD 80,
              RFC 20, DOI 10.17487/RFC0020, October 1969,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc20>.

   [RFC6749]  Hardt, D., Ed., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework",
              RFC 6749, DOI 10.17487/RFC6749, October 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6749>.

   [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/info/rfc7591>.

   [RFC8259]  Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
              Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, December 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8259>.

   [RFC9101]  Sakimura, N., Bradley, J., and M. Jones, "The OAuth 2.0
              Authorization Framework: JWT-Secured Authorization Request
              (JAR)", RFC 9101, DOI 10.17487/RFC9101, August 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9101>.

Lodderstedt, et al.       Expires 25 June 2023                 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  December 2022

   [RFC9126]  Lodderstedt, T., Campbell, B., Sakimura, N., Tonge, D.,
              and F. Skokan, "OAuth 2.0 Pushed Authorization Requests",
              RFC 9126, DOI 10.17487/RFC9126, September 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9126>.

   [transaction-authorization]
              Lodderstedt, T., "Transaction Authorization or why we need
              to re-think OAuth scopes", 20 April 2019,
              <https://medium.com/oauth-2/transaction-authorization-or-
              why-we-need-to-re-think-oauth-scopes-2326e2038948>.

Appendix A.  Additional Examples

A.1.  OpenID Connect

   OpenID Connect [OIDC] specifies the JSON-based claims request
   parameter that can be used to specify the claims a client (acting as
   OpenID Connect Relying Party) wishes to receive in a fine-grained and
   privacy-preserving way as well as assign those claims to certain
   delivery mechanisms, i.e. ID Token or userinfo response.

   The combination of the scope value openid and the additional
   parameter claims can be used beside authorization_details in the same
   way as every non-OIDC scope value.

   Alternatively, there could be an authorization details type for
   OpenID Connect.  This section gives an example of what such an
   authorization details type could look like, but defining this
   authorization details type is outside the scope of this
   specification.

   These hypothetical examples try to encapsulate all details specific
   to the OpenID Connect part of an authorization process into an
   authorization JSON object.

   The top-level field are based on the definitions given in [OIDC]:

   *  claim_sets: names of predefined claim sets, replacement for
      respective scope values, such as profile
   *  max_age: Maximum Authentication Age
   *  acr_values: requested Authentication Context Class Reference (ACR)
      values.
   *  claims: the claims JSON structure as defined in [OIDC]

   This is a simple request for some claim sets.

Lodderstedt, et al.       Expires 25 June 2023                 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  December 2022

   [
      {
         "type": "openid",
         "locations": [
            "https://op.example.com/userinfo"
         ],
         "claim_sets": [
            "email",
            "profile"
         ]
      }
   ]

          Figure 25: Example for OpenID Connect request utilizing
                           authorization_details.

   Note: locations specifies the location of the userinfo endpoint since
   this is the only place where an access token is used by a client (RP)
   in OpenID Connect to obtain claims.

   A more sophisticated example is shown in the following

Lodderstedt, et al.       Expires 25 June 2023                 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  December 2022

   [
      {
         "type": "openid",
         "locations": [
            "https://op.example.com/userinfo"
         ],
         "max_age": 86400,
         "acr_values": "urn:mace:incommon:iap:silver",
         "claims": {
            "userinfo": {
               "given_name": {
                  "essential": true
               },
               "nickname": null,
               "email": {
                  "essential": true
               },
               "email_verified": {
                  "essential": true
               },
               "picture": null,
               "http://example.com/claims/groups": null
            },
            "id_token": {
               "auth_time": {
                  "essential": true
               }
            }
         }
      }
   ]

      Figure 26: Advanced example for OpenID Connect request utilizing
                           authorization_details.

A.2.  Remote Electronic Signing

   The following example is based on the concept laid out for remote
   electronic signing in ETSI TS 119 432 [ETSI] and the CSC API for
   remote signature creation [CSC].

Lodderstedt, et al.       Expires 25 June 2023                 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  December 2022

   [
      {
         "type": "sign",
         "locations": [
            "https://signing.example.com/signdoc"
         ],
         "credentialID": "60916d31-932e-4820-ba82-1fcead1c9ea3",
         "documentDigests": [
            {
               "hash": "sTOgwOm+474gFj0q0x1iSNspKqbcse4IeiqlDg/HWuI=",
               "label": "Credit Contract"
            },
            {
               "hash": "HZQzZmMAIWekfGH0/ZKW1nsdt0xg3H6bZYztgsMTLw0=",
               "label": "Contract Payment Protection Insurance"
            }
         ],
         "hashAlgorithmOID": "2.16.840.1.101.3.4.2.1"
      }
   ]

                 Figure 27: Example for electronic signing.

   The top-level fields have the following meaning:

   *  credentialID: identifier of the certificate to be used for signing
   *  documentDigests: array containing the hash of every document to be
      signed (hash fields).  Additionally, the corresponding label field
      identifies the respective document to the user, e.g. to be used in
      user consent.
   *  hashAlgorithm: algorithm that was used to calculate the hash
      values.

   The AS is supposed to ask the user for consent for the creation of
   signatures for the documents listed in the structure.  The client
   uses the access token issued as a result of the process to call the
   sign doc endpoint at the respective signing service to actually
   create the signature.  This access token is bound to the client, the
   user id and the hashes (and signature algorithm) as consented by the
   user.

A.3.  Access to Tax Data

   This example is inspired by an API allowing third parties to access
   citizen's tax declarations and income statements, for example, to
   determine their creditworthiness.

Lodderstedt, et al.       Expires 25 June 2023                 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  December 2022

   [
       {
           "type": "tax_data",
           "locations": [
               "https://taxservice.govehub.no.example.com"
           ],
           "actions":"read_tax_declaration",
           "periods": ["2018"],
           "duration_of_access": 30,
           "tax_payer_id": "23674185438934"
       }
   ]

                  Figure 28: Example for tax data access.

   The top-level fields have the following meaning:

   *  periods: determines the periods the client wants to access
   *  duration_of_access: how long does the client intend to access the
      data in days
   *  tax_payer_id: identifier of the taxpayer (if known to the client)

A.4.  eHealth

   These two examples are inspired by requirements for APIs used in the
   Norwegian eHealth system.

   In this use case, the physical therapist sits in front of their
   computer using a local Electronic Health Records (EHR) system.  They
   want to look at the electronic patient records of a certain patient
   and they also want to fetch the patients journal entries in another
   system, perhaps at another institution or a national service.  Access
   to this data is provided by an API.

   The information necessary to authorize the request at the API is only
   known by the EHR system, and must be presented to the API.

   In the first example, the authorization details object contains the
   identifier of an organization.  In this case, the API needs to know
   if the given organization has the lawful basis for processing
   personal health information to give access to sensitive data.

Lodderstedt, et al.       Expires 25 June 2023                 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  December 2022

   "authorization_details": {
       "type": "patient_record",
       "requesting_entity": {
           "type": "Practitioner",
           "identifier": [
           {
               "system": "urn:oid:2.16.578.1.12.4.1.4.4",
               "value": "1234567"
           }],
           "practitioner_role": {
               "organization": {
                   "identifier": {
                       "system": "urn:oid:2.16.578.1.12.4.1.2.101",
                       "type": "ENH",
                       "value": "[organizational number]"
                   }
               }
           }
       }
   }

                        Figure 29: eHealth Example.

   In the second example, the API requires more information to authorize
   the request.  In this case, the authorization details object contains
   additional information about the health institution and the current
   profession the user has at the time of the request.  The additional
   level of detail could be used for both authorization and data
   minimization.

   [
      {
         "type": "patient_record",
         "location": "https://fhir.example.com/patient",
         "actions": [
            "read"
         ],
         "patient_identifier": [
            {
               "system": "urn:oid:2.16.578.1.12.4.1.4.1",
               "value": "12345678901"
            }
         ],
         "reason_for_request": "Clinical treatment",
         "requesting_entity": {
            "type": "Practitioner",
            "identifier": [
               {

Lodderstedt, et al.       Expires 25 June 2023                 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  December 2022

                  "system": "urn:oid:2.16.578.1.12.4.1.4.4",
                  "value": "1234567"
               }
            ],
            "practitioner_role": {
               "organization": {
                  "identifier": [
                     {
                        "system": "urn:oid:2.16.578.1.12.4.1.2.101",
                        "type": "ENH",
                        "value": "<organizational number>"
                     }
                  ],
                  "type": {
                     "coding": [
                        {
                           "system":
                              "http://hl7.example.org/fhir/org-type",
                           "code": "dept",
                           "display": "Hospital Department"
                        }
                     ]
                  },
                  "name": "Akuttmottak"
               },
               "profession": {
                  "coding": [
                     {
                        "system": "http://snomed.example.org/sct",
                        "code": "36682004",
                        "display": "Physical therapist"
                     }
                  ]
               }
            }
         }
      }
   ]

                    Figure 30: Advanced eHealth example.

   Description of the fields:

   *  patient_identifier: the identifier of the patient composed of a
      system identifier in OID format (namespace) and the actual value
      within this namespace.
   *  reason_for_request: the reason why the user wants to access a
      certain API

Lodderstedt, et al.       Expires 25 June 2023                 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  December 2022

   *  requesting_entity: specification of the requester by means of
      identity, role and organizational context.  This data is provided
      to facilitate authorization and for auditing purposes.

   In this use case, the AS authenticates the requester, who is not the
   patient, and approves access based on policies.

Appendix B.  Document History

   [[ To be removed from the final specification ]]

   -22

   *  Add clarifying language around the geolocation example and
      Section 6.1 per Paul Wouters' ballot comment

   -21

   *  incorporated feedback from Robert Wilton and É (U+00C9)ric Vyncke

   -20

   *  incorporated feedback from Murray Kucherawy

   -19

   *  incorporated feedback from Lars Eggert

   -18

   *  IANA Considerations cleanup

   -17

   *  incorporated feedback from Genart review

   -16

   *  incorporated feedback from Sec Dir review

   -15

   *  Editorial updates from Roman Danyliw's AD review
   *  Other editorial updates

   -14

   *  Added clarification regarding authorization details types matching

Lodderstedt, et al.       Expires 25 June 2023                 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  December 2022

   *  Removed duplicate text on use of "scope" and "resource" parameters
      alongside "authorization_details"
   *  Replaced duplicate error response description in Section 8 with
      reference to Section 5

   -13

   *  Editorial updates from Roman Danyliw's AD review
   *  Removed normative language from field definitions.

   -12

   *  Clarify introspection response.
   *  Editorial updates

   -11

   *  Updated IANA registrations adding authorization_details parameter

   -10

   *  Updated IANA registrations

   -09

   *  Incorporated feedback by Hannes as document shepherd

   -08

   *  formatting in authorization details type section
   *  added example for privileges common data element

   -07

   *  incorporated review feedback from WGLC
   *  fixed wording in token introspection section
   *  added privacy considerations re authorization details in token
      response

   -06

   *  removed use of resource indicators to filter authorization details
      in token response

   -05

   *  added authorization_details token request parameter and discussion
      on authorization details comparison

Lodderstedt, et al.       Expires 25 June 2023                 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  December 2022

   *  added privileges field to authorization details (to align with
      GNAP)
   *  added IANA text and changed metadata parameter names
   *  added text about use of machine-readable type schemas, e.g.  JSON
      Schema
   *  added text on how authorization details are determined for access
      token issued with token response
   *  added token error response and further error conditions to
      authorization error response

   -04

   *  restructured draft for better readability
   *  simplified normative text about use of the resource parameter with
      authorization_details
   *  added implementation considerations for deployments and products
   *  added type union language from GNAP
   *  added recommendation to use PAR to cope with large requests and
      for request protection

   -03

   *  Updated references to current revisions or RFC numbers
   *  Added section about enrichment of authorization details objects by
      the AS
   *  Clarified processing of unknown authorization details parameters
   *  clarified dependencies between resource and authorization_details
      parameters

   -02

   *  Clarify "type" parameter processing

   -01

   *  Minor fix-up in a few examples

   -00 (WG draft)

   *  initial WG revision

   -03

   *  Reworked examples to illustrate privacy preserving use of
      authorization_details
   *  Added text on audience restriction
   *  Added description of relationship between scope and
      authorization_details

Lodderstedt, et al.       Expires 25 June 2023                 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft                  oauth-rar                  December 2022

   *  Added text on token request & response and authorization_details
   *  Added text on how authorization details are conveyed to RSs by
      JWTs or token introspection endpoint response
   *  Added description of relationship between claims and
      authorization_details
   *  Added more example from different sectors
   *  Clarified string comparison to be byte-exact without collation

   -02

   *  Added Security Considerations
   *  Added Privacy Considerations
   *  Added notes on URI size and authorization details
   *  Added requirement to return the effective authorization details
      granted by the resource owner in the token response
   *  changed authorization_details structure from object to array
   *  added Justin Richer & Brian Campbell as Co-Authors

   -00 / -01

   *  first draft

Authors' Addresses

   Torsten Lodderstedt
   yes.com
   Email: torsten@lodderstedt.net

   Justin Richer
   Bespoke Engineering
   Email: ietf@justin.richer.org

   Brian Campbell
   Ping Identity
   Email: bcampbell@pingidentity.com

Lodderstedt, et al.       Expires 25 June 2023                 [Page 45]