draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-02.txt   draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-03.txt 
Network Working Group M. Jones Network Working Group M. Jones
Internet-Draft Microsoft Internet-Draft Microsoft
Intended status: Standards Track D. Hardt Intended status: Standards Track D. Hardt
Expires: August 1, 2011 independent Expires: August 29, 2011 independent
D. Recordon D. Recordon
Facebook Facebook
January 28, 2011 February 25, 2011
The OAuth 2.0 Protocol: Bearer Tokens The OAuth 2.0 Protocol: Bearer Tokens
draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-02 draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-03
Abstract Abstract
This specification describes how to use bearer tokens when accessing This specification describes how to use bearer tokens when accessing
OAuth 2.0 protected resources. OAuth 2.0 protected resources.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
skipping to change at page 1, line 34 skipping to change at page 1, line 34
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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://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 August 1, 2011. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 29, 2011.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2011 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://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 15 skipping to change at page 2, line 15
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Authenticated Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Authenticated Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. The Authorization Request Header Field . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1. The Authorization Request Header Field . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Form-Encoded Body Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2. Form-Encoded Body Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. URI Query Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.3. URI Query Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.4. The WWW-Authenticate Response Header Field . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. Security Threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.4.1. Error Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. Threat Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3. Summary of Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.1. Security Threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2. Threat Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. OAuth Access Token Type Registration . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.3. Summary of Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1.1. The "OAuth2" OAuth Access Token Type . . . . . . . . . 9 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2. OAuth Parameters Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.1. OAuth Access Token Type Registration . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2.1. The "oauth_token" OAuth Parameter . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.1.1. The "Bearer" OAuth Access Token Type . . . . . . . . . 11
5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.2. The OAuth Parameters Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.2.1. Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.2.2. OAuth Parameters Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.3. The OAuth Errors Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix B. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.3.1. Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.3.2. Initial Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendix B. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
OAuth enables clients to access protected resources by obtaining an OAuth enables clients to access protected resources by obtaining an
access token, which is defined in [OAuth2] as "a string representing access token, which is defined in [I-D.ietf-oauth-v2] as "a string
an access authorization issued to the client", rather than using the representing an access authorization issued to the client", rather
resource owner's credentials. than using the resource owner's credentials.
Tokens are issued to clients by an authorization server with the Tokens are issued to clients by an authorization server with the
approval of the resource owner. The client uses the access token to approval of the resource owner. The client uses the access token to
access the protected resources hosted by the resource server. This access the protected resources hosted by the resource server. This
specification describes how to make protected resource requests by specification describes how to make protected resource requests by
treating an OAuth access token as a bearer token. treating an OAuth access token as a bearer token.
This specification defines the use of bearer tokens with OAuth over This specification defines the use of bearer tokens with OAuth over
HTTP [RFC2616] using TLS [RFC2818]. Other specifications may extend HTTP [RFC2616] using TLS [RFC2818]. Other specifications may extend
it for use with other transport protocols. it for use with other transport protocols.
1.1. Notational Conventions 1.1. Notational Conventions
The key words 'MUST', 'MUST NOT', 'REQUIRED', 'SHALL', 'SHALL NOT', The key words 'MUST', 'MUST NOT', 'REQUIRED', 'SHALL', 'SHALL NOT',
'SHOULD', 'SHOULD NOT', 'RECOMMENDED', 'MAY', and 'OPTIONAL' in this 'SHOULD', 'SHOULD NOT', 'RECOMMENDED', 'MAY', and 'OPTIONAL' in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
This document uses the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) notation of This document uses the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) notation of
[I-D.ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging]. Additionally, the following rules [I-D.ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging]. Additionally, the following rules
are included from [RFC2617]: auth-param; and from are included from [RFC2617]: auth-param; from [RFC3986]: URI-
[I-D.ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging]: RWS. Reference; and from [I-D.ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging]: RWS and quoted-
string.
Unless otherwise noted, all the protocol parameter names and values Unless otherwise noted, all the protocol parameter names and values
are case sensitive. are case sensitive.
1.2. Terminology 1.2. Terminology
All terms are as defined in [OAuth2]. All terms are as defined in [I-D.ietf-oauth-v2].
1.3. Overview 1.3. Overview
OAuth provides a method for clients to access a protected resource on OAuth provides a method for clients to access a protected resource on
behalf of a resource owner. Before a client can access a protected behalf of a resource owner. Before a client can access a protected
resource, it must first obtain authorization (access grant) from the resource, it must first obtain authorization (access grant) from the
resource owner and then exchange the access grant for an access token resource owner and then exchange the access grant for an access token
(representing the grant's scope, duration, and other attributes). (representing the grant's scope, duration, and other attributes).
The client accesses the protected resource by presenting the access The client accesses the protected resource by presenting the access
token to the resource server. token to the resource server.
skipping to change at page 4, line 42 skipping to change at page 4, line 43
E) The client makes a protected resource request to the resource E) The client makes a protected resource request to the resource
server by presenting the access token. server by presenting the access token.
F) The resource server validates the access token, and if valid, F) The resource server validates the access token, and if valid,
serves the request. serves the request.
2. Authenticated Requests 2. Authenticated Requests
Clients make authenticated token requests using the "Authorization" Clients make authenticated token requests using the "Authorization"
request header field. Resource servers MUST accept authenticated request header field. Resource servers MUST accept authenticated
requests using the "OAuth2" HTTP authentication scheme as described requests using the "Bearer" HTTP authentication scheme as described
in Section 2.1, and MAY support additional methods. in Section 2.1, and MAY support additional methods.
Alternatively, clients MAY attempt to include the access token in the Alternatively, clients MAY attempt to include the access token in the
HTTP body when using the "application/x-www-form-urlencoded" content HTTP body when using the "application/x-www-form-urlencoded" content
type as described in Section 2.2 or using the HTTP request URI in the type as described in Section 2.2 or using the HTTP request URI in the
query component as described in Section 2.3. Resource servers MAY query component as described in Section 2.3. Resource servers MAY
support these alternative methods. support these alternative methods.
Clients SHOULD only use the request body or URI when the Clients SHOULD only use the request body or URI when the
"Authorization" request header field is not available, and MUST NOT "Authorization" request header field is not available, and MUST NOT
use more than one method to transport the token in each request. use more than one method to transport the token in each request.
Because of the Security Considerations (Section 3) associated with Because of the Security Considerations (Section 3) associated with
the URI method, it SHOULD only be used if no other method is the URI method, it SHOULD only be used if no other method is
feasible. feasible.
2.1. The Authorization Request Header Field 2.1. The Authorization Request Header Field
The "Authorization" request header field is used by clients to make The "Authorization" request header field is used by clients to make
authenticated token requests. The client uses the "OAuth2" authenticated token requests. The client uses the "Bearer"
authentication scheme to include the access token in the request. authentication scheme to include the access token in the request.
For example: For example:
GET /resource HTTP/1.1 GET /resource HTTP/1.1
Host: server.example.com Host: server.example.com
Authorization: OAuth2 vF9dft4qmT Authorization: Bearer vF9dft4qmT
The "Authorization" header field uses the framework defined by The "Authorization" header field uses the framework defined by
[RFC2617] as follows: [RFC2617] as follows:
credentials = "OAuth2" RWS access-token [ RWS 1#auth-param ] credentials = "Bearer" RWS access-token [ RWS 1#auth-param ]
access-token = 1*( quoted-char / <"> ) access-token = 1*( quoted-char / <"> )
quoted-char = "!" / "#" / "$" / "%" / "&" / "'" / "(" quoted-char = "!" / "#" / "$" / "%" / "&" / "'" / "("
/ ")" / "*" / "+" / "-" / "." / "/" / DIGIT / ")" / "*" / "+" / "-" / "." / "/" / DIGIT
/ ":" / "<" / "=" / ">" / "?" / "@" / ALPHA / ":" / "<" / "=" / ">" / "?" / "@" / ALPHA
/ "[" / "]" / "^" / "_" / "`" / "{" / "|" / "[" / "]" / "^" / "_" / "`" / "{" / "|"
/ "}" / "~" / "\" / "," / ";" / "}" / "~" / "\" / "," / ";"
2.2. Form-Encoded Body Parameter 2.2. Form-Encoded Body Parameter
skipping to change at page 7, line 5 skipping to change at page 7, line 5
separated by an "&" character (ASCII code 38). separated by an "&" character (ASCII code 38).
For example: For example:
http://example.com/resource?x=y&oauth_token=vF9dft4qmT http://example.com/resource?x=y&oauth_token=vF9dft4qmT
Because of the Security Considerations (Section 3) associated with Because of the Security Considerations (Section 3) associated with
the URI method, it SHOULD only be used if no other method is the URI method, it SHOULD only be used if no other method is
feasible. feasible.
2.4. The WWW-Authenticate Response Header Field
If the protected resource request does not include authentication
credentials, contains an invalid access token, or is malformed, the
resource server MUST include the HTTP "WWW-Authenticate" response
header field. The "WWW-Authenticate" header field uses the framework
defined by [RFC2617] as follows:
challenge = "Bearer" [ RWS 1#param ]
param = scope /
error / error-desc / error-uri /
( token "=" ( token / quoted-string ) )
scope = "scope" "=" <"> scope-v *( SP scope-v ) <">
scope-v = 1*quoted-char
quoted-char = ALPHA / DIGIT /
"!" / "#" / "$" / "%" / "&" / "'" / "(" / ")" /
"*" / "+" / "-" / "." / "/" / ":" / "<" / "=" /
">" / "?" / "@" / "[" / "]" / "^" / "_" / "`" /
"{" / "|" / "}" / "~" / "\" / "," / ";"
error = "error" "=" quoted-string
error-desc = "error_description" "=" quoted-string
error-uri = "error_uri" = <"> URI-reference <">
The "scope" attribute is a space-delimited list of scope values
indicating the required scope of the access token for accessing the
requested resource. The "scope" attribute MUST NOT appear more than
once.
If the protected resource request included an access token and failed
authentication, the resource server SHOULD include the "error"
attribute to provide the client with the reason why the access
request was declined. The parameter value is described in
Section 2.4.1. In addition, the resource server MAY include the
"error_description" attribute to provide a human-readable
explanation, and the "error_uri" attribute with an absolute URI
identifying a human-readable web page explaining the error. The
"error", "error_description", and "error_uri" attribute MUST NOT
appear more than once.
For example, in response to a protected resource request without
authentication:
HTTP/1.1 401 Unauthorized
WWW-Authenticate: Bearer
And in response to a protected resource request with an
authentication attempt using an expired access token:
HTTP/1.1 401 Unauthorized
WWW-Authenticate: Bearer
error="invalid_token",
error_description="The access token expired"
2.4.1. Error Codes
When a request fails, the resource server responds using the
appropriate HTTP status code (typically, 400, 401, or 403), and
includes one of the following error codes in the response:
invalid_request
The request is missing a required parameter, includes an
unsupported parameter or parameter value, repeats the same
parameter, uses more than one method for including an access
token, or is otherwise malformed. The resource server SHOULD
respond with the HTTP 400 (Bad Request) status code.
invalid_token
The access token provided is expired, revoked, malformed, or
invalid for other reasons. The resource SHOULD respond with
the HTTP 401 (Unauthorized) status code. The client MAY
request a new access token and retry the protected resource
request.
insufficient_scope
The request requires higher privileges than provided by the
access token. The resource server SHOULD respond with the HTTP
403 (Forbidden) status code and MAY include the "scope"
attribute with the scope necessary to access the protected
resource.
New errors MUST be separately registered in the OAuth Errors registry
as described by Section 4.3.
If the request lacks any authentication information (i.e. the client
was unaware authentication is necessary or attempted using an
unsupported authentication method), the resource server SHOULD not
include an error code or other error information.
For example:
HTTP/1.1 401 Unauthorized
WWW-Authenticate: Bearer
3. Security Considerations 3. Security Considerations
This section describes the relevant security threats regarding token This section describes the relevant security threats regarding token
handling when using bearer tokens and describes how to mitigate these handling when using bearer tokens and describes how to mitigate these
threats. threats.
3.1. Security Threats 3.1. Security Threats
The following list presents several common threats against protocols The following list presents several common threats against protocols
utilizing some form of tokens. This list of threats is based on NIST utilizing some form of tokens. This list of threats is based on NIST
skipping to change at page 9, line 34 skipping to change at page 11, line 34
browser tokens in message bodies for which confidentiality browser tokens in message bodies for which confidentiality
measures are taken. measures are taken.
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
4.1. OAuth Access Token Type Registration 4.1. OAuth Access Token Type Registration
This specification registers the following access token type in the This specification registers the following access token type in the
OAuth Access Token Type Registry. OAuth Access Token Type Registry.
4.1.1. The "OAuth2" OAuth Access Token Type 4.1.1. The "Bearer" OAuth Access Token Type
Type name: Type name:
OAuth2 Bearer
Additional Token Request Parameters: Additional Resource Request Parameters:
oauth_token oauth_token
HTTP Authentication Scheme(s): HTTP Authentication Scheme(s):
OAuth2 Bearer
Change controller: Change controller:
IETF IETF
Specification document(s): Specification document(s):
[[ this document ]] [[ this document ]]
4.2. OAuth Parameters Registration 4.2. The OAuth Parameters Registry
This specification augments the OAuth Parameters registry established
by [I-D.ietf-oauth-v2] by adding two additional parameter usage
locations: "resource request" and "resource response".
Additional parameters for inclusion in the resource endpoint request
or the resource endpoint response are registered on the advice of one
or more Designated Experts (appointed by the IESG or their delegate),
with a Specification Required (using terminology from [RFC5226]).
However, to allow for the allocation of values prior to publication,
the Designated Expert(s) may approve registration once they are
satisfied that such a specification will be published.
Registration requests should be sent to the [TBD]@ietf.org mailing
list for review and comment, with an appropriate subject (e.g.,
"Request for parameter: example"). [[ Note to RFC-EDITOR: The name of
the mailing list should be determined in consultation with the IESG
and IANA. Suggested name: oauth-ext-review. ]]
Before a period of 14 days has passed, the Designated Expert(s) will
either approve or deny the registration request, communicating this
decision both to the review list and to 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@iesg.org mailing list) for resolution.
4.2.1. Registration Template
Parameter name:
The name requested (e.g., "example").
Parameter usage location:
The location(s) where parameter can be used. The additional
locations are: resource request, resource response. These are in
addition to the locations authorization request, authorization
response, token request, and token response already established by
[I-D.ietf-oauth-v2].
Change controller:
For standards-track RFCs, state "IETF". For others, give the name
of the responsible party. Other details (e.g., postal address,
e-mail address, home page URI) may also be included.
Specification document(s):
Reference to document that specifies the parameter, preferably
including a URI that can be used to retrieve a copy of the
document. An indication of the relevant sections may also be
included, but is not required.
4.2.2. OAuth Parameters Registration
This specification registers the following parameters in the OAuth This specification registers the following parameters in the OAuth
Parameters Registry established by [OAuth2]. Parameters Registry.
4.2.1. The "oauth_token" OAuth Parameter 4.2.2.1. The "oauth_token" OAuth Parameter
Parameter name: oauth_token Parameter name: oauth_token
Parameter usage location: Token requests Parameter usage location: resource request
Change controller: IETF Change controller: IETF
Specification document(s): [[ this document ]] Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]
Related information: None Related information: None
4.2.2.2. The "error" OAuth Parameter
Parameter name: error
Parameter usage location: authorization response, token response,
resource response
Change controller: IETF
Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]
Related information: None
4.3. The OAuth Errors Registry
This specification establishes the OAuth Errors registry.
Additional errors for inclusion in the authorization endpoint
response, the token endpoint response, or the resource endpoint
response are registered on the advice of one or more Designated
Experts (appointed by the IESG or their delegate), with a
Specification Required (using terminology from [RFC5226]). However,
to allow for the allocation of values prior to publication, the
Designated Expert(s) may approve registration once they are satisfied
that such a specification will be published.
Registration requests should be sent to the [TBD]@ietf.org mailing
list for review and comment, with an appropriate subject (e.g.,
"Request for error: example"). [[ Note to RFC-EDITOR: The name of the
mailing list should be determined in consultation with the IESG and
IANA. Suggested name: oauth-ext-review. ]]
Before a period of 14 days has passed, the Designated Expert(s) will
either approve or deny the registration request, communicating this
decision both to the review list and to 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@iesg.org mailing list) for resolution.
4.3.1. Registration Template
Error name:
The name requested (e.g., "example").
Error usage location:
The location(s) where error can be used. The possible locations
are: authorization response, token response, resource response.
Change controller:
For standards-track RFCs, state "IETF". For others, give the name
of the responsible party. Other details (e.g., postal address,
e-mail address, home page URI) may also be included.
Specification document(s):
Reference to document that specifies the error, preferably
including a URI that can be used to retrieve a copy of the
document. An indication of the relevant sections may also be
included, but is not required.
4.3.2. Initial Registry Contents
The OAuth Errors Registry's initial contents are:
o Error name: invalid_request
o Error usage location: resource response
o Change controller: IETF
o Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]
o Error name: invalid_token
o Error usage location: resource response
o Change controller: IETF
o Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]
o Error name: insufficient_scope
o Error usage location: resource response
o Change controller: IETF
o Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]
5. References 5. References
5.1. Normative References 5.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging] [I-D.ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging]
Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Nielsen, H., Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Nielsen, H.,
Masinter, L., Leach, P., Berners-Lee, T., and J. Reschke, Masinter, L., Leach, P., Berners-Lee, T., and J. Reschke,
"HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message "HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message
Parsing", draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-09 (work in Parsing", draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-09 (work in
progress), March 2010. progress), March 2010.
[OAuth2] Hammer-Lahav, E., Ed., Recordon, D., and D. Hardt, "The [I-D.ietf-oauth-v2]
OAuth 2.0 Protocol Framework", 2011. Hammer-Lahav, E., Recordon, D., and D. Hardt, "The OAuth
2.0 Authorization Protocol", draft-ietf-oauth-v2-13 (work
in progress), February 2011.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., [RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999. Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.
[RFC2617] Franks, J., Hallam-Baker, P., Hostetler, J., Lawrence, S., [RFC2617] Franks, J., Hallam-Baker, P., Hostetler, J., Lawrence, S.,
Leach, P., Luotonen, A., and L. Stewart, "HTTP Leach, P., Luotonen, A., and L. Stewart, "HTTP
Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication", Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication",
RFC 2617, June 1999. RFC 2617, June 1999.
[RFC2818] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000. [RFC2818] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, January 2005. RFC 3986, January 2005.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
[W3C.REC-html401-19991224] [W3C.REC-html401-19991224]
Hors, A., Raggett, D., and I. Jacobs, "HTML 4.01 Raggett, D., Hors, A., and I. Jacobs, "HTML 4.01
Specification", World Wide Web Consortium Specification", World Wide Web Consortium
Recommendation REC-html401-19991224, December 1999, Recommendation REC-html401-19991224, December 1999,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224>. <http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224>.
5.2. Informative References 5.2. Informative References
[NIST800-63] [NIST800-63]
Burr, W., Dodson, D., Perlner, R., Polk, T., Gupta, S., Burr, W., Dodson, D., Perlner, R., Polk, T., Gupta, S.,
and E. Nabbus, "NIST Special Publication 800-63-1, and E. Nabbus, "NIST Special Publication 800-63-1,
INFORMATION SECURITY", December 2008. INFORMATION SECURITY", December 2008.
skipping to change at page 11, line 43 skipping to change at page 16, line 48
Hara, Michael B. Jones, Torsten Lodderstedt, Eve Maler, James Manger, Hara, Michael B. Jones, Torsten Lodderstedt, Eve Maler, James Manger,
Laurence Miao, Chuck Mortimore, Anthony Nadalin, Justin Richer, Peter Laurence Miao, Chuck Mortimore, Anthony Nadalin, Justin Richer, Peter
Saint-Andre, Nat Sakimura, Rob Sayre, Marius Scurtescu, Naitik Shah, Saint-Andre, Nat Sakimura, Rob Sayre, Marius Scurtescu, Naitik Shah,
Justin Smith, Jeremy Suriel, Christian Stuebner, Paul Tarjan, and Justin Smith, Jeremy Suriel, Christian Stuebner, Paul Tarjan, and
Franklin Tse. Franklin Tse.
Appendix B. Document History Appendix B. Document History
[[ to be removed by RFC editor before publication as an RFC ]] [[ to be removed by RFC editor before publication as an RFC ]]
-03
o Restored the WWW-Authenticate response header functionality
deleted from the framework specification in draft 12 based upon
the specification text from draft 11.
o Augmented the OAuth Parameters registry by adding two additional
parameter usage locations: "resource request" and "resource
response".
o Registered the "oauth_token" OAuth parameter with usage location
"resource request".
o Registered the "error" OAuth parameter.
o Created the OAuth Error registry and registered errors.
o Changed the "OAuth2" OAuth access token type name to "Bearer".
-02 -02
o Incorporated feedback received on draft 01. Most changes were to o Incorporated feedback received on draft 01. Most changes were to
the security considerations section. No normative changes were the security considerations section. No normative changes were
made. Specific changes included: made. Specific changes included:
o Changed terminology from "token reuse" to "token capture and o Changed terminology from "token reuse" to "token capture and
replay". replay".
o Removed sentence "Encrypting the token contents is another o Removed sentence "Encrypting the token contents is another
 End of changes. 26 change blocks. 
40 lines changed or deleted 305 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/