# OAuth Virtual Interim Meeting {#oauth-virtual-interim-meeting} Date: 22.09.2025 ## Client ID Prefix and the related Client ID Metadata {#client-id-prefix-and-the-related-client-id-metadata} https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-parecki-oauth-client-id-prefix/ Aaron starts with his presentation. Hannes asked about how the client demonstrates possession of the private key when used with the JWK URL. Aaron mentions that the use case of native apps will be covered later in the slide deck. For the use case where the web server acts as a client this is not an issue. Hannes asks whether we should revisit the dynamic client registration specification. Aaron argues that DCR will be talked about at an upcoming interim meeting in context of workloads. So, there may be a use case there. Emelia: A client id metadata document can contain anything. You could display various aspects to the user - at a minimum the URL but there could be more, maybe based on the trust relationships. There are security step-ups that are possible beyond manually approving it. Aaron asked whether this answers the question. Hannes agrees. It mimics the approach published a while ago in the group related to attestation, see "The Use of Attestation in OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration". Emelia comments on the design of the BlueSky client. Aaron has also been creating a PoC with FedCM. MCP is also considering this solution instead of DCR. Emelia: There was the client id prefix and I have not seen this functionality in the wild. Is there any AS that supports both features? Aaron goes back to the example of slide 3. Should there be a prefix on this client to explain the matching algorithm? If an AS has to support this document and also OpenID Federation then it has to guess. The idea of using a URL for the client\_id goes back like 12 years. Pieter: Sometimes the clients may have credentials already. Does the prefix allow allow to express alternative discovery&matching procedures? There may be credentials, per instance identifiers, and the meta-data discovery mechanism. You could express the meta-data separately from the client id related to the credential. The client id may not be a URL at all. Aaron: This is not this mechanism. Pieter: I am proposing to combine these two ideas. Aaron: This specification points to the metadata. Pieter: The dynamic nature of workloads may prohibit there to be any public keys available already. I would like to re-use the metadata information for the workload context. Aaron: You have a 3-part client id: prefix, client id and link to metadata. Pieter: yes. The other idea is to have the client id in the credential but not as a subject. Emelia suggests some limits on the path of the client id URL. Aaron: I want to point out that there is no DDoS attack possibilities with the client id URL provided to the AS since there is no amplification. Brian: This is valuable work providing solutions for a significant number of deployments. This is work we should consider moving forward. I am not sure there is a pre-requisitie for the prefix document. Aaron: There are use cases where this document alone is sufficient and where there is no need to implement&support the prefix draft. I would not want to tie one to the other. Emelia: An open issue is the use of ephemeral client id metadata documents (e.g. development clients). We currently cannot signal to an AS that the metadata document is not valid after a certain period of time. Hannes: What problems does DCR solve that this document does not solve? Aaron: Both documents do not support the case with native apps where there is no attestation support, for example on desktops. Here is a blog post that offers a good comparison: https://blog.modelcontextprotocol.io/posts/client\_registration/ Rifaat suggests to do a call for adoption after the good receiption of the draft. Hannes agrees. Emelia suggests to solicit from outside communities. Pieter: Was the call for adoption for the client id metadata or also for the prefix document? Hannes+Rifaat: client id metadata