OAuth 2.0 Protected Resource Metadata
draft-jones-oauth-resource-metadata-02
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 "Replaced".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Michael B. Jones , Phil Hunt | ||
| Last updated | 2023-03-29 | ||
| Replaced by | draft-ietf-oauth-resource-metadata | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-jones-oauth-resource-metadata-02
OAuth Working Group M.B. Jones
Internet-Draft P. Hunt
Intended status: Standards Track independent
Expires: 30 September 2023 29 March 2023
OAuth 2.0 Protected Resource Metadata
draft-jones-oauth-resource-metadata-02
Abstract
This specification defines a metadata format that an OAuth 2.0 client
can use to obtain the information needed to interact with an OAuth
2.0 protected resource.
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 30 September 2023.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 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.
Jones & Hunt Expires 30 September 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Protected Resource Metadata March 2023
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Notation and Conventions . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Protected Resource Metadata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Signed Protected Resource Metadata . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Obtaining Protected Resource Metadata . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Protected Resource Metadata Request . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Protected Resource Metadata Response . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Protected Resource Metadata Validation . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Authorization Server Metadata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. String Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1. TLS Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2. Impersonation Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.3. Publishing Metadata in a Standard Format . . . . . . . . 10
6.4. Authorization Servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1. OAuth Protected Resource Metadata Registry . . . . . . . 11
7.1.1. Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1.2. Initial Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.2. OAuth Authorization Server Metadata Registry . . . . . . 14
7.2.1. Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.3. Well-Known URI Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.3.1. Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendix B. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Introduction
This specification defines a metadata format enabling OAuth 2.0
clients to obtain information needed to interact with an OAuth 2.0
protected resource. This specification is intentionally as parallel
as possible to "OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration Protocol"
[RFC7591], which enables a client to provide metadata about itself to
an OAuth 2.0 authorization server and to OAuth 2.0 Authorization
Server Metadata [OAuth.AuthorizationMetadata], which enables a client
to obtain metadata about an OAuth 2.0 authorization server.
The metadata for a protected resource is retrieved from a well-known
location as a JSON [RFC7159] document, which declares information
about its capabilities and optionally, its relationships to other
services. This process is described in Section 3.
Jones & Hunt Expires 30 September 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Protected Resource Metadata March 2023
This metadata can either be communicated in a self-asserted fashion
or as a set of signed metadata values represented as claims in a JSON
Web Token (JWT) [JWT]. In the JWT case, the issuer is vouching for
the validity of the data about the protected resource. This is
analogous to the role that the Software Statement plays in OAuth
Dynamic Client Registration [RFC7591].
Each protected resource publishing metadata about itself makes its
own metadata document available at a well-known location rooted at
the protect resource's URL, even when the resource server implements
multiple protected resources. This prevents attackers from
publishing metadata supposedly describing the protected resource, but
that is not actually authoritative for the protected resource, as
described in Section 6.2.
The means by which the client obtains the location of the protected
resource metadata document is out of scope. In some cases, the
location may be manually configured into the client. In other cases,
it may be dynamically discovered, for instance, through the use of
WebFinger [RFC7033], in a manner related to the description in
Section 2 of "OpenID Connect Discovery 1.0" [OpenID.Discovery].
1.1. Requirements Notation and Conventions
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 RFC
2119 [RFC2119].
All uses of JSON Web Signature (JWS) [JWS] and JSON Web Encryption
(JWE) [JWE] data structures in this specification utilize the JWS
Compact Serialization or the JWE Compact Serialization; the JWS JSON
Serialization and the JWE JSON Serialization are not used.
1.2. Terminology
This specification uses the terms "Access Token", "Authorization
Code", "Authorization Endpoint", "Authorization Grant",
"Authorization Server", "Client", "Client Authentication", "Client
Identifier", "Client Secret", "Grant Type", "Protected Resource",
"Redirection URI", "Refresh Token", "Resource Owner", "Resource
Server", "Response Type", and "Token Endpoint" defined by OAuth 2.0
[RFC6749], the terms "Claim Name", "Claim Value", and "JSON Web Token
(JWT)" defined by JSON Web Token (JWT) [JWT].
Jones & Hunt Expires 30 September 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Protected Resource Metadata March 2023
2. Protected Resource Metadata
Protected resources can have metadata describing their configuration.
The following protected resource metadata values are used by this
specification and are registered in the IANA "OAuth Protected
Resource Metadata" registry established in Section 7.1:
resource
REQUIRED. The protected resource's resource identifier, which is
a URL that uses the https scheme and has no fragment components.
This is the location where .well-known RFC 5785 [RFC5785]
resources containing information about the protected resource are
published. Using these well-known resources is described in
Section 3.
authorization_servers
OPTIONAL. JSON array containing a list of OAuth authorization
server issuer identifiers, as defined in
[OAuth.AuthorizationMetadata], for authorization servers that can
be used with this protected resource. Protected resources MAY
choose not to advertise some supported authorization servers even
when this parameter is used. In some use cases, the set of
authorization servers will not be enumerable, in which case this
metadata parameter would not be used.
jwks_uri
OPTIONAL. URL of the protected resource's JWK Set [JWK] document.
This contains keys belonging to the protected resource. For
instance, this JWK Set MAY contain encryption key(s) that are used
to encrypt access tokens to the protected resource. When both
signing and encryption keys are made available, a use (public key
use) parameter value is REQUIRED for all keys in the referenced
JWK Set to indicate each key's intended usage.
scopes_provided
RECOMMENDED. JSON array containing a list of the OAuth 2.0
[RFC6749] scope values that are used in authorization requests to
request access to this protected resource. Protected resources
MAY choose not to advertise some scope values provided even when
this parameter is used.
bearer_methods_supported
OPTIONAL. JSON array containing a list of the OAuth 2.0 Bearer
Token [RFC6750] presentation methods that this protected resource
supports. Defined values are ["header", "fragment", "query"],
corresponding to Sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 of RFC 6750.
Jones & Hunt Expires 30 September 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Protected Resource Metadata March 2023
resource_signing_alg_values_supported
OPTIONAL. JSON array containing a list of the JWS [JWS] signing
algorithms (alg values) [JWA] supported by the protected resource
for signed content. The value none MAY be included.
resource_encryption_alg_values_supported
OPTIONAL. JSON array containing a list of the JWE [JWE]
encryption algorithms (alg values) [JWA] supported by the
protected resource for encrypted content.
resource_encryption_enc_values_supported
OPTIONAL. JSON array containing a list of the JWE encryption
algorithms (enc values) [JWA] supported by the protected resource
for encrypted content.
resource_documentation
OPTIONAL. URL of a page containing human-readable information
that developers might want or need to know when using the
protected resource
resource_policy_uri
OPTIONAL. URL that the protected resource provides to read about
the protected resource's requirements on how the client can use
the data provided by the protected resource
resource_tos_uri
OPTIONAL. URL that the protected resource provides to read about
the protected resource's terms of service
Additional protected resource metadata parameters MAY also be used.
2.1. Signed Protected Resource Metadata
In addition to JSON elements, metadata values MAY also be provided as
a signed_metadata value, which is a JSON Web Token (JWT) [JWT] that
asserts metadata values about the protected resource as a bundle. A
set of claims that can be used in signed metadata are defined in
Section 2. The signed metadata MUST be digitally signed or MACed
using JSON Web Signature (JWS) [JWS] and MUST contain an iss (issuer)
claim denoting the party attesting to the claims in the signed
metadata. Consumers of the metadata MAY ignore the signed metadata
if they do not support this feature. If the consumer of the metadata
supports signed metadata, metadata values conveyed in the signed
metadata MUST take precedence over those conveyed using plain JSON
elements.
Signed metadata is included in the protected resource metadata JSON
object using this OPTIONAL member:
Jones & Hunt Expires 30 September 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Protected Resource Metadata March 2023
signed_metadata
A JWT containing metadata values about the protected resource as
claims. This is a string value consisting of the entire signed
JWT. A signed_metadata metadata value SHOULD NOT appear as a
claim in the JWT.
3. Obtaining Protected Resource Metadata
Protected resources supporting metadata MUST make a JSON document
containing metadata as specified in Section 2 available at a path
formed by concatenating a well-known URI string such as /.well-known/
oauth-protected-resource to the protected resource's resource
identifier. The syntax and semantics of .well-known are defined in
RFC 5785 [RFC5785]. The well-known URI path suffix used MUST be
registered in the IANA "Well-Known URIs" registry [IANA.well-known].
Different applications utilizing OAuth protected resources in
application-specific ways may define and register different well-
known URI path suffixes used to publish protected resource metadata
as used by those applications. For instance, if the Example
application uses an OAuth protected resource in an Example-specific
way, and there are Example-specific metadata values that it needs to
publish, then it might register and use the example-resource-
configuration URI path suffix and publish the metadata document at
the path formed by concatenating /.well-known/example-resource-
configuration to the protected resource's resource identifier.
An OAuth 2.0 application using this specification MUST specify what
well-known URI string it will use for this purpose. The same
protected resource MAY choose to publish its metadata at multiple
well-known locations relative to its resource identifier, for
example, publishing metadata at both /.well-known/example-resource-
configuration and /.well-known/oauth-protected-resource.
3.1. Protected Resource Metadata Request
A protected resource metadata document MUST be queried using an HTTP
GET request at the previously specified path.
The consumer of the metadata would make the following request when
the resource identifier is https://resource.example.com and the well-
known URI path suffix is oauth-protected-resource to obtain the
metadata, since the resource identifier contains no path component:
GET /.well-known/oauth-protected-resource HTTP/1.1
Host: resource.example.com
Jones & Hunt Expires 30 September 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Protected Resource Metadata March 2023
If the resource identifier value contains a path component, any
terminating / MUST be removed before appending /.well-known/ and the
well-known URI path suffix. The consumer of the metadata would make
the following request when the resource identifier is
https://resource.example.com/resource1 and the well-known URI path
suffix is oauth-protected-resource to obtain the metadata, since the
resource identifier contains a path component:
GET /resource1/.well-known/oauth-protected-resource HTTP/1.1
Host: resource.example.com
Using path components enables supporting multiple resources per host.
This is required in some multi-tenant hosting configurations. This
use of .well-known is for supporting multiple resources per host;
unlike its use in RFC 5785 [RFC5785], it does not provide general
information about the host.
3.2. Protected Resource Metadata Response
The response is a set of claims about the protected resource's
configuration. A successful response MUST use the 200 OK HTTP status
code and return a JSON object using the application/json content type
that contains a set of claims as its members that are a subset of the
metadata values defined in Section 2. Other claims MAY also be
returned.
Claims that return multiple values are represented as JSON arrays.
Claims with zero elements MUST be omitted from the response.
An error response uses the applicable HTTP status code value.
The following is a non-normative example response:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/json
{
"resource":
"https://resource.example.com",
"authorization_servers":
["https://as1.example.com",
"https://as2.example.net"],
"bearer_methods_supported":
["header", "body"],
"resource_documentation":
"http://resource.example.com/resource_documentation.html"
}
Jones & Hunt Expires 30 September 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Protected Resource Metadata March 2023
3.3. Protected Resource Metadata Validation
The resource value returned MUST be identical to the protected
resource's resource identifier value that was concatenated with the
well-known URI path suffix to create the URL used to retrieve the
metadata. If these values are not identical, the data contained in
the response MUST NOT be used.
4. Authorization Server Metadata
To support use cases in which the set of legitimate protected
resources to use with the authorization server is fixed and
enumerable, this specification defines the protected_resources
metadata value, which enables explicitly listing them. Note that if
the set of legitimate authorization servers to use with a protected
resource is also fixed and enumerable, lists in the authorization
server metadata and protected resource metadata should be cross-
checked against one another for consistency when these lists are used
by the application profile.
The following authorization server metadata value is defined by this
specification and is registered in the IANA "OAuth Authorization
Server Metadata" registry established in OAuth 2.0 Authorization
Server Metadata [OAuth.AuthorizationMetadata].
protected_resources
OPTIONAL. JSON array containing a list of resource identifiers
for OAuth protected resources for protected resources that can be
used with this authorization server. Authorization servers MAY
choose not to advertise some supported protected resources even
when this parameter is used. In some use cases, the set of
protected resources will not be enumerable, in which case this
metadata parameter would not be used.
5. String Operations
Processing some OAuth 2.0 messages requires comparing values in the
messages to known values. For example, the member names in the
metadata response might be compared to specific member names such as
resource. Comparing Unicode [UNICODE] strings, however, has
significant security implications.
Therefore, comparisons between JSON strings and other Unicode strings
MUST be performed as specified below:
1. Remove any JSON applied escaping to produce an array of Unicode
code points.
Jones & Hunt Expires 30 September 2023 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Protected Resource Metadata March 2023
2. Unicode Normalization [USA15] MUST NOT be applied at any point to
either the JSON string or to the string it is to be compared
against.
3. Comparisons between the two strings MUST be performed as a
Unicode code point to code point equality comparison.
6. Security Considerations
6.1. TLS Requirements
Implementations MUST support TLS. Which version(s) ought to be
implemented will vary over time, and depend on the widespread
deployment and known security vulnerabilities at the time of
implementation. The protected resource MUST support TLS version 1.2
[RFC5246] and MAY support additional transport-layer security
mechanisms meeting its security requirements. When using TLS, the
client MUST perform a TLS/SSL server certificate check, per RFC 6125
[RFC6125]. Implementation security considerations can be found in
Recommendations for Secure Use of TLS and DTLS [BCP195].
To protect against information disclosure and tampering,
confidentiality protection MUST be applied using TLS with a
ciphersuite that provides confidentiality and integrity protection.
6.2. Impersonation Attacks
TLS certificate checking MUST be performed by the client, as
described in Section 6.1, when making a protected resource metadata
request. Checking that the server certificate is valid for the
resource identifier URL prevents man-in-middle and DNS-based attacks.
These attacks could cause a client to be tricked into using an
attacker's resource server, which would enable impersonation of the
legitimate protected resource. If an attacker can accomplish this,
they can access the resources that the affected client has access to
using the protected resource that they are impersonating.
An attacker may also attempt to impersonate a protected resource by
publishing a metadata document that contains a resource claim using
the resource identifier URL of the protected resource being
impersonated, but containing information of the attacker's choosing.
This would enable it to impersonate that protected resource, if
accepted by the client. To prevent this, the client MUST ensure that
the resource identifier URL it is using as the prefix for the
metadata request exactly matches the value of the resource metadata
value in the protected resource metadata document received by the
client.
Jones & Hunt Expires 30 September 2023 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Protected Resource Metadata March 2023
6.3. Publishing Metadata in a Standard Format
Publishing information about the protected resource in a standard
format makes it easier for both legitimate clients and attackers to
use the protected resource. Whether a protected resource publishes
its metadata in an ad-hoc manner or in the standard format defined by
this specification, the same defenses against attacks that might be
mounted that use this information should be applied.
6.4. Authorization Servers
Secure determination of appropriate authorization servers to use with
a protected resource for all use cases is out of scope of this
specification. This specification assumes that the client has a
means of determining appropriate authorization servers to use with a
protected resource and that the client is using the correct metadata
for each protected resource. Implementers need to be aware that if
an inappropriate authorization server is used by the client, that an
attacker may be able to act as a man-in-the-middle proxy to a valid
authorization server without it being detected by the authorization
server or the client.
The ways to determine the appropriate authorization servers to use
with a protected resource are in general, application-dependent. For
instance, some protected resources are used with a fixed
authorization server or set of authorization servers, the locations
of which may be well known, or which could be published as metadata
values by the protected resource. In other cases, the set of
authorization servers that can be used with a protected resource can
by dynamically changed by administrative actions or by changes to the
set of authorization servers adhering to a trust framework. Many
other means of determining appropriate associations between protected
resources and authorization servers are also possible.
To support use cases in which the set of legitimate authorization
servers to use with the protected resource is fixed and enumerable,
this specification defines the authorization_servers metadata value,
which enables explicitly listing them. Note that if the set of
legitimate protected resources to use with an authorization server is
also fixed and enumerable, lists in the protected resource metadata
and authorization server metadata should be cross-checked against one
another for consistency when these lists are used by the application
profile.
7. IANA Considerations
The following registration procedure is used for the registry
established by this specification.
Jones & Hunt Expires 30 September 2023 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Protected Resource Metadata March 2023
Values are registered on a Specification Required [RFC5226] basis
after a two-week review period on the oauth-ext-review@ietf.org
mailing list, on the advice of one or more Designated Experts.
However, to allow for the allocation of values prior to publication,
the Designated Experts may approve registration once they are
satisfied that such a specification will be published.
Registration requests sent to the mailing list for review should use
an appropriate subject (e.g., "Request to register OAuth Protected
Resource Metadata: example").
Within the review period, the Designated Experts will either approve
or deny the registration request, communicating this decision to the
review list and IANA. Denials should include an explanation and, if
applicable, suggestions as to how to make the request successful.
Registration requests that are undetermined for a period longer than
21 days can be brought to the IESG's attention (using the
iesg@ietf.org mailing list) for resolution.
Criteria that should be applied by the Designated Experts includes
determining whether the proposed registration duplicates existing
functionality, determining whether it is likely to be of general
applicability or whether it is useful only for a single application,
and whether the registration makes sense.
IANA must only accept registry updates from the Designated Experts
and should direct all requests for registration to the review mailing
list.
It is suggested that multiple Designated Experts be appointed who are
able to represent the perspectives of different applications using
this specification, in order to enable broadly-informed review of
registration decisions. In cases where a registration decision could
be perceived as creating a conflict of interest for a particular
Expert, that Expert should defer to the judgment of the other
Experts.
7.1. OAuth Protected Resource Metadata Registry
This specification establishes the IANA "OAuth Protected Resource
Metadata" registry for OAuth 2.0 protected resource metadata names.
The registry records the protected resource metadata member and a
reference to the specification that defines it.
Jones & Hunt Expires 30 September 2023 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Protected Resource Metadata March 2023
7.1.1. Registration Template
Metadata Name:
The name requested (e.g., "resource"). This name is case-
sensitive. Names may not match other registered names in a case-
insensitive manner unless the Designated Experts state that there
is a compelling reason to allow an exception.
Metadata Description:
Brief description of the metadata (e.g., "Resource identifier
URL").
Change Controller:
For Standards Track RFCs, list the "IETF". For others, give the
name of the responsible party. Other details (e.g., postal
address, email address, home page URI) may also be included.
Specification Document(s):
Reference to the document or documents that specify the parameter,
preferably including URIs that can be used to retrieve copies of
the documents. An indication of the relevant sections may also be
included but is not required.
7.1.2. Initial Registry Contents
* Metadata Name: resource
* Metadata Description: Protected resource's resource identifier URL
* Change Controller: IETF
* Specification Document(s): Section 2 of [[ this specification ]]
* Metadata Name: authorization_servers
* Metadata Description: JSON array containing a list of OAuth
authorization server issuer identifiers
* Change Controller: IETF
* Specification Document(s): Section 2 of [[ this specification ]]
* Metadata Name: jwks_uri
* Metadata Description: URL of the protected resource's JWK Set
document
* Change Controller: IETF
* Specification Document(s): Section 2 of [[ this specification ]]
* Metadata Name: scopes_provided
* Metadata Description: JSON array containing a list of the OAuth
2.0 scope values that are used in authorization requests to
request access this protected resource
* Change Controller: IETF
* Specification Document(s): Section 2 of [[ this specification ]]
Jones & Hunt Expires 30 September 2023 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Protected Resource Metadata March 2023
* Metadata Name: bearer_methods_supported
* Metadata Description: JSON array containing a list of the OAuth
2.0 Bearer Token presentation methods that this protected resource
supports
* Change Controller: IETF
* Specification Document(s): Section 2 of [[ this specification ]]
* Metadata Name: resource_signing_alg_values_supported
* Metadata Description: JSON array containing a list of the JWS
signing algorithms (alg values) supported by the protected
resource for signed content
* Change Controller: IETF
* Specification Document(s): Section 2 of [[ this specification ]]
* Metadata Name: resource_encryption_alg_values_supported
* Metadata Description: JSON array containing a list of the JWE
encryption algorithms (alg values) supported by the protected
resource for encrypted content
* Change Controller: IETF
* Specification Document(s): Section 2 of [[ this specification ]]
* Metadata Name: resource_encryption_enc_values_supported
* Metadata Description: JSON array containing a list of the JWE
encryption algorithms (enc values) supported by the protected
resource for encrypted content
* Change Controller: IETF
* Specification Document(s): Section 2 of [[ this specification ]]
* Metadata Name: resource_documentation
* Metadata Description: URL of a page containing human-readable
information that developers might want or need to know when using
the protected resource
* Change Controller: IETF
* Specification Document(s): Section 2 of [[ this specification ]]
* Metadata Name: resource_policy_uri
* Metadata Description: URL that the protected resource provides to
read about the protected resource's requirements on how the client
can use the data provided by the protected resource
* Change Controller: IETF
* Specification Document(s): Section 2 of [[ this specification ]]
* Metadata Name: resource_tos_uri
* Metadata Description: URL that the protected resource provides to
read about the protected resource's terms of service
* Change Controller: IETF
* Specification Document(s): Section 2 of [[ this specification ]]
Jones & Hunt Expires 30 September 2023 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Protected Resource Metadata March 2023
7.2. OAuth Authorization Server Metadata Registry
The following authorization server metadata value is registered in
the IANA "OAuth Authorization Server Metadata" registry established
in OAuth 2.0 Authorization Server Metadata
[OAuth.AuthorizationMetadata].
7.2.1. Registry Contents
* Metadata Name: protected_resources
* Metadata Description: JSON array containing a list of resource
identifiers for OAuth protected resources
* Change Controller: IETF
* Specification Document(s): Section 4 of [[ this specification ]]
7.3. Well-Known URI Registry
This specification registers the well-known URI defined in Section 3
in the IANA "Well-Known URIs" registry [IANA.well-known] established
by RFC 5785 [RFC5785].
7.3.1. Registry Contents
* URI suffix: oauth-protected-resource
* Change controller: IETF
* Specification document: Section 3 of [[ this specification ]]
* Related information: (none)
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[BCP195] Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre,
"Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer
Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
(DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 7525, DOI 10.17487/RFC7525, May
2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp195>.
[JWA] Jones, M.B., "JSON Web Algorithms (JWA)", RFC 7518,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7518, May 2015,
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7518>.
[JWE] Jones, M.B. and J. Hildebrand, "JSON Web Encryption
(JWE)", RFC 7516, DOI 10.17487/RFC7516, May 2015,
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7516>.
Jones & Hunt Expires 30 September 2023 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Protected Resource Metadata March 2023
[JWK] Jones, M.B., "JSON Web Key (JWK)", RFC 7517,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7517, May 2015,
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7517>.
[JWS] Jones, M.B., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web
Signature (JWS)", RFC 7515, DOI 10.17487/RFC7515, May
2015, <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7515>.
[JWT] Jones, M.B., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token
(JWT)", RFC 7519, DOI 10.17487/RFC7519, May 2015,
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7519>.
[OAuth.AuthorizationMetadata]
Jones, M.B., Sakimura, N., and J. Bradley, "OAuth 2.0
Authorization Server Metadata", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-oauth-discovery-05, 19 January
2017, <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-
discovery-05>.
[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>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.
[RFC5785] Nottingham, M. and E. Hammer-Lahav, "Defining Well-Known
Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)", RFC 5785,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5785, April 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5785>.
[RFC6125] Saint-Andre, P. and J. Hodges, "Representation and
Verification of Domain-Based Application Service Identity
within Internet Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509
(PKIX) Certificates in the Context of Transport Layer
Security (TLS)", RFC 6125, DOI 10.17487/RFC6125, March
2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6125>.
Jones & Hunt Expires 30 September 2023 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Protected Resource Metadata March 2023
[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>.
[RFC6750] Jones, M. and D. Hardt, "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization
Framework: Bearer Token Usage", RFC 6750,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6750, October 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6750>.
[RFC7033] Jones, P., Salgueiro, G., Jones, M., and J. Smarr,
"WebFinger", RFC 7033, DOI 10.17487/RFC7033, September
2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7033>.
[RFC7159] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
Interchange Format", RFC 7159, DOI 10.17487/RFC7159, March
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7159>.
[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>.
[UNICODE] The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard",
<http://www.unicode.org/versions/latest/>.
[USA15] Davis, M. and K. Whistler, "Unicode Normalization Forms",
Unicode Standard Annex 15, 1 June 2015,
<http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr15/>.
8.2. Informative References
[IANA.well-known]
IANA, "Well-Known URIs",
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/well-known-uris>.
[OpenID.Discovery]
Sakimura, N., Bradley, J., Jones, M.B., and E. Jay,
"OpenID Connect Discovery 1.0", 8 November 2014,
<http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-discovery-
1_0.html>.
Appendix A. Acknowledgements
Thanks to George Fletcher and Tony Nadalin for their input on the
specification.
Jones & Hunt Expires 30 September 2023 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Protected Resource Metadata March 2023
Appendix B. Document History
[[ to be removed by the RFC Editor before publication as an RFC ]]
-02
* Applied IANA request to use "IETF" as the Change Controller.
-01
* Moved the protected_resources authorization server metadata
element here, removing it from draft-ietf-oauth-discovery.
-00
* Created the initial version. This draft reuses some text from
draft-ietf-oauth-discovery-03.
Authors' Addresses
Michael B. Jones
independent
Email: michael_b_jones@hotmail.com
URI: https://self-issued.info/
Phil Hunt
independent
Email: phil.hunt@yahoo.com
Jones & Hunt Expires 30 September 2023 [Page 17]