Skip to main content

Reciprocal OAuth

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 is Expired
Author Dick Hardt
Last updated 2018-05-24
Stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
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)
OAuth Working Group                                             D. Hardt
Internet-Draft                                                    Amazon
Intended status: Standards Track                            May 26, 2018
Expires: November 27, 2018

                            Reciprocal OAuth


   There are times when a user has a pair of protected resources that
   would like to request access to each other.  While OAuth flows
   typically enable the user to grant a client access to a protected
   resource, granting the inverse access requires an additional flow.
   Reciprocal OAuth enables a more seamless experience for the user to
   grant access to a pair of protected resources.

Status of This Memo

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

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

   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 27, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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
   ( in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of

Hardt                   Expires November 27, 2018               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                     I-D                          May 2018

   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

1.  Introduction

   In the usual three legged, authorization code grant, the OAuth flow
   enables a resource owner (user) to enable a client (party A) to be
   granted authorization to access a protected resource (party B).  If
   party A also has a protected resource that the user would like to let
   party B access, then a second complete OAuth flow, but in the reverse
   direction, must be performed.  In practice, this is a complicated
   user experience as the user is at Party A, but the OAuth flow needs
   to start from Party B.  This requires the second flow to send the
   user back to party B, which then sends the user to Party A as the
   first step in the flow.  At the end, the user is at Party B, even
   though the original flow started at Party A.

   Reciprocal OAuth simplifies the user experience by eliminating the
   redirections in the second OAuth flow.  After the intial OAuth flow,
   party A obtains consent from the user to grant party B access to a
   protected resource at party A, and then passes an authorization code
   to party B using the access token party A obtained from party B to
   provide party B the context of the user.  Party B then exchanges the
   authorization code for an access token per the usual OAuth flow.

1.1.  Terminology

   In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
   and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119

2.  Reciprocal Scope Request

   When party B is providing an authorization response per [RFC6749]
   4.1.2, party B MAY include an additional query component in the
   redirection URI to indicate the scope requested in the reciprocal

   reciprocal OPTIONAL.  The scope of party B's reciprocal access
   request per [RFC6749] 3.3.

   If party B does not provide a reciprocal parameter in the
   authorization response, the reciprocal scope will be a value
   previously preconfigured by party A and party B.

Hardt                   Expires November 27, 2018               [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                     I-D                          May 2018

3.  Reciprocal Authorization Flow

   The reciprocal authorization flow starts after the client (party A)
   has obtained an access token from the authorization server (party B)
   per [RFC6749] 4.1 Authorization Code Grant.

3.1.  User Consent

   Party A obtains consent from the user to grant Party B access to
   protected resources at party A.  The consent represents the scopes
   party B had preconfigured at party A.

3.2.  Reciprocal Authorization Code

   Party A generates an authorization code representing the access
   granted to party B by the user.  Party A then makes a request to
   party B's token endpoint authenticating per [RFC6749] 2.3 and sending
   the following parameters using the "application/x-www-form-
   urlencoded" format per [RFC6749] Appendix B with a character encoding
   of UTF-8 in the HTTP request entity-body:

   grant_type REQUIRED.  Value MUST be set to

   code REQUIRED.  The authorization code generated by party A.

   client_id REQUIRED, party A'a client ID.

   access_token REQUIRED, the access token obtained from Party B.  Used
   to provide user context.

   For example, the client makes the following HTTP request using TLS
   (with extra line breaks for display purposes only):

 POST /token HTTP/1.1
 Authorization: Basic ej4hsyfishwssjdusisdhkjsdksusdhjkjsdjk
 Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded


   Party B MUST verify the authentication provided by Party A per
   [RFC6749] 2.3

   Party B MUST then verify the access token was granted to the client
   identified by the client_id.

Hardt                   Expires November 27, 2018               [Page 3]
Internet-Draft                     I-D                          May 2018

   Party B MUST respond with either an HTTP 200 (OK) response if the
   request is valid, or an HTTP 400 "Bad Request" if it is not.

   Party B then plays the role of the client to make an access token
   request per [RFC6749] 4.1.3.

4.  IANA Considerations


5.  Acknowledgements


6.  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,

   [RFC6749]  Hardt, D., Ed., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework",
              RFC 6749, DOI 10.17487/RFC6749, October 2012,

   [RFC6750]  Jones, M. and D. Hardt, "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization
              Framework: Bearer Token Usage", RFC 6750,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6750, October 2012,

Appendix A.  Document History

A.1.  draft-ietf-oauth-reciprical-00

   o  Initial version.

Author's Address

   Dick Hardt


Hardt                   Expires November 27, 2018               [Page 4]