draft-ietf-oauth-reciprocal-02.txt   draft-ietf-oauth-reciprocal-03.txt 
OAuth Working Group D. Hardt OAuth Working Group D. Hardt
Internet-Draft July 03, 2019 Internet-Draft July 23, 2019
Intended status: Standards Track Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: January 4, 2020 Expires: January 24, 2020
Reciprocal OAuth Reciprocal OAuth
draft-ietf-oauth-reciprocal-02 draft-ietf-oauth-reciprocal-03
Abstract Abstract
There are times when a user has a pair of protected resources that There are times when a user has a pair of protected resources that
would like to request access to each other. While OAuth flows would like to request access to each other. While OAuth flows
typically enable the user to grant a client access to a protected typically enable the user to grant a client access to a protected
resource, granting the inverse access requires an additional flow. resource, granting the inverse access requires an additional flow.
Reciprocal OAuth enables a more seamless experience for the user to Reciprocal OAuth enables a more seamless experience for the user to
grant access to a pair of protected resources. grant access to a pair of protected resources.
skipping to change at page 1, line 35 skipping to change at page 1, line 35
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 4, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 24, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 29 skipping to change at page 2, line 29
though the original flow started at Party A. though the original flow started at Party A.
Reciprocal OAuth simplifies the user experience by eliminating the Reciprocal OAuth simplifies the user experience by eliminating the
redirections in the second OAuth flow. After the intial OAuth flow, 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 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 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 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 provide party B the context of the user. Party B then exchanges the
authorization code for an access token per the usual OAuth flow. authorization code for an access token per the usual OAuth flow.
For example, a user would like their voice assistant (party A) and
music service (party B) to work together. The voice assistant wants
to call the music service to play music, and the music service wants
to call the voice assistant with music information to present to the
user. The user starts the OAuth flow at the voice assistant, and is
redirected to the music service. The music services obtains consent
from the user and the redirects back to the voice assistant. At this
point the voice assistant is able to obtain an access token for the
music service. The voice assistant can the get consent from the user
to authorize the music service to access the voice assistant, and
then the voice assistant can create an authorization code and send it
to the music service, which then exchanges the authorization code for
an access token, all without further user interaction. Note that
either the voice assistant or the music service can initiate the
flow, so that either can prompt the user for the two parties to work
together.
1.1. Terminology 1.1. Terminology
In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
"SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
[RFC2119]. [RFC2119].
2. Reciprocol Protocol Flow 2. reciprocal Protocol Flow
Party A Party B Party A Party B
+---------------+ +---------------+ +---------------+ +---------------+
| |--(A)- Authorization Request ->| Resource | | |--(A)- Authorization Request ->| Resource |
| | | Owner B | | | | Owner B |
| |<-(B)-- Authorization Grant ---| | | |<-(B)-- Authorization Grant ---| |
| | +---------------+ | | +---------------+
| Client A | | Client A |
| | +---------------+ | | +---------------+
| |--(C)-- Authorization Grant -->| | | |--(C)-- Authorization Grant -->| |
| | | Authorization | | | | Authorization |
| |<-(D)---- Access Token B ------| Server B | | |<-(D)---- Access Token B ------| Server B |
| | Reciprocol Request | | | | reciprocal Request | |
+---------------+ +---------------+ +---------------+ +---------------+
| |
Reciprocol Request reciprocal Request
V V
+---------------+ +---------------+ +---------------+ +---------------+
| Resource | | Authorization | | Resource | | Authorization |
| Owner A |--(E)--- Reciprocol Grant ---->| Server B | | Owner A |--(E)--- reciprocal Grant ---->| Server B |
| | Access Token B | | | | Access Token B | |
+---------------+ +---------------+ +---------------+ +---------------+
| |
Reciprocol Grant reciprocal Grant
V V
+---------------+ +---------------+ +---------------+ +---------------+
| |<-(F)--- Reciprocol Grant -----| | | |<-(F)--- reciprocal Grant -----| |
| Authorization | | Client B | | Authorization | | Client B |
| Server A |--(G)---- Access Token A ----->| | | Server A |--(G)---- Access Token A ----->| |
+---------------+ +---------------+ +---------------+ +---------------+
Figure 1: Abstract Reciprocol Protocol Flow Figure 1: Abstract reciprocal Protocol Flow
The reciprocol authorization between party A and party B are The reciprocal authorization between party A and party B are
abstractly represented in Figure 1 and includes the following steps: abstractly represented in Figure 1 and includes the following steps:
o (A - C) are the same as in [RFC6749] 1.2 o (A - C) are the same as in [RFC6749] 1.2
o (D) Party B optionally includes the reciprocol scope in the o (D) Party B optionally includes the reciprocal scope in the
response. response. See Section 2.1 for details.
See Section 2.1 for details.
o (E) Party A sends the reciprocol authorization grant to party B. o (E) Party A sends the reciprocal authorization grant to party B.
See Section 2.2.2 for details. See Section 2.2.2 for details.
o (F) Party B requests an access token, mirroring step (B) o (F) Party B requests an access token, mirroring step (B)
o (G) Party A issues an access token, mirroring step (C) o (G) Party A issues an access token, mirroring step (C)
Note that Resource Owner A and Resource Owner B are the respective
resource owner interaction systems controlled by the same owner.
2.1. Reciprocal Scope Request 2.1. Reciprocal Scope Request
When party B is providing an access token response per [RFC6749] When party B is providing an access token response per [RFC6749]
4.1.4, 4.2.1, 4.3.3 or 4.4.3, party B MAY include an additional query 4.1.4, 4.2.1, 4.3.3 or 4.4.3, party B MAY include an additional query
component in the redirection URI to indicate the scope requested in component in the redirection URI to indicate the scope requested in
the reciprocal grant: the reciprocal grant:
reciprocal OPTIONAL reciprocal OPTIONAL
The scope of party B's reciprocal access request per [RFC6749] 3.3. The scope of party B's reciprocal access request per [RFC6749] 3.3.
skipping to change at page 7, line 16 skipping to change at page 7, line 16
RFC 6749, DOI 10.17487/RFC6749, October 2012, RFC 6749, DOI 10.17487/RFC6749, October 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6749>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6749>.
[RFC6750] Jones, M. and D. Hardt, "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization [RFC6750] Jones, M. and D. Hardt, "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization
Framework: Bearer Token Usage", RFC 6750, Framework: Bearer Token Usage", RFC 6750,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6750, October 2012, DOI 10.17487/RFC6750, October 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6750>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6750>.
Appendix A. Document History Appendix A. Document History
A.1. draft-ietf-oauth-reciprical-00 A.1. draft-ietf-oauth-reciprocal-00
o Initial version. o Initial version.
A.2. draft-ietf-oauth-reciprical-01 A.2. draft-ietf-oauth-reciprocal-01
o Changed reciprocal scope request to be in access token response o Changed reciprocal scope request to be in access token response
rather than authorization request rather than authorization request
A.3. draft-ietf-oauth-reciprical-02 A.3. draft-ietf-oauth-reciprocal-02
o Added in diagram to clarify protocol flow o Added in diagram to clarify protocol flow
A.4. draft-ietf-oauth-reciprocal-03
o fixed spelling of reciprocal
o added example use case in introduction
o resource owner is the same in Party A and Party B
Author's Address Author's Address
Dick Hardt Dick Hardt
Email: dick.hardt@gmail.com Email: dick.hardt@gmail.com
 End of changes. 20 change blocks. 
19 lines changed or deleted 46 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/