OAuth 2.0 Incremental Authorization
draft-wdenniss-oauth-incremental-auth-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2017-07-03
Replaces draft-wdenniss-incremental-auth
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
OAuth Working Group                                           W. Denniss
Internet-Draft                                                    Google
Intended status: Standards Track                            July 3, 2017
Expires: January 4, 2018

                  OAuth 2.0 Incremental Authorization
                draft-wdenniss-oauth-incremental-auth-00

Abstract

   OAuth 2.0 authorization requests that include every scope the client
   might ever need can result in over-scoped authorization and a sub-
   optimal end-user consent experience.  This specification enhances the
   OAuth 2.0 authorization protocol by adding incremental authorization,
   the ability to request specific authorization scopes as needed, when
   they're needed, removing the requirement to request every possible
   scope that might be needed upfront.

Status of This Memo

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

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

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 4, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of

Denniss                  Expires January 4, 2018                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft         OAuth 2.0 Incremental Auth              July 2017

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

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Notational Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   4.  Incremental Auth for Confidential Clients . . . . . . . . . .   3
   5.  Incremental Auth for Public Clients . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     6.1.  OAuth Parameters Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   7.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Appendix B.  Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5

1.  Introduction

   OAuth 2.0 clients may offer multiple features that requiring user
   authorization, but commonly not every user will use each feature.
   Without incremental authentication, applications need to either
   request all the possible scopes they need upfront, potentially
   resulting in a bad user experience, or track each authorization grant
   separately, complicating development.

   The goal of incremental authorization is to allow clients to request
   just the scopes they need, when they need them, while allowing them
   to store a single authorization grant for the user that contains the
   sum of the scopes granted.  Thus, each new authorization request
   increments the scope of the authorization grant, without the client
   needing to track a separate authorization grant for each group of
   scopes.

2.  Notational 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 Key
   words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels [RFC2119].  If
   these words are used without being spelled in uppercase then they are
   to be interpreted with their normal natural language meanings.

3.  Terminology

   In addition to the terms defined in referenced specifications, this
   document uses the following terms:
Show full document text