]> Okta

aaron@parecki.com https://aaronparecki.com

emelia@brandedcode.com https://thisismissem.social

Security Web Authorization Protocol oauth This specification defines a mechanism through which an OAuth client can identify itself to authorization servers, without prior dynamic client registration or other existing registration. This is through the usage of a URL as a client_id in an OAuth flow, where the URL refers to a document containing the necessary client metadata, enabling the authorization server to fetch the metadata about the client as needed. About This Document The latest revision of this draft can be found at . Status information for this document may be found at . Discussion of this document takes place on the Web Authorization Protocol Working Group mailing list (), which is archived at . Subscribe at . Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at .

Introduction In order for an OAuth 2.0 client to utilize an OAuth 2.0 authorization server, the client needs to establish a unique identifier, and needs to provide the server with metadata about the application, such as the application name, icon and redirect URIs. In cases where a client is interacting with authorization servers that it has no relationship with, manual registration is impossible. While Dynamic Client Registration can provide a method for a previously unknown client to establish itself at an authorization server and obtain a client identifier, this is not always practical in some deployments and can create additional challenges around management of the registration data and cleanup of inactive clients. This specification describes how an OAuth 2.0 client can publish its own registration information and avoid the need for pre-registering at each authorization server. This approach works best for clients that have an established, stable, and publicly accessible web presence, such as a web service, a website for a mobile app, or a service that controls its own domain. Clients that do not control a stable public URL, such as clients under active development on a developer's local machine, or clients that cannot guarantee the longevity of a URL, are less well served by this mechanism. Deployments that need to support such clients should consider the guidance in and .

Conventions and Definitions 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 BCP 14 when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

Client Identifier URL This specification defines a URL format used as a client's identifier, referred to in this document as a Client Identifier URL. A Client Identifier URL:

• MUST use the https URL scheme
• MUST NOT contain a userinfo component defined by
• MAY contain a port
• MUST contain a path component
• MUST NOT contain single-dot or double-dot path components
• SHOULD NOT contain a query component
• MUST NOT contain a fragment component

Client Identifier URLs MUST be compared using simple string comparison, as defined in Section 6.2.1 of . For example, https://example.com/client and https://example.com:443/client are not equivalent even though 443 is the default port for the https scheme. This specification places no restrictions on the brevity or longevity of a Client Identifier URL beyond the requirements listed above. A short URL is RECOMMENDED, since the URI may be displayed to the end user in the authorization interface or in management interfaces. Usage of a stable URL that does not change frequently for the client is also RECOMMENDED, as changing the URL will appear to the authorization server to be an entirely different Client Identifier URL as described in . Note that URL shortening services are generally not suitable as Client Identifier URLs, since they typically operate using HTTP redirects, which conflicts with the requirement in when fetching the Client ID Metadata Document. Using a path of / (e.g., https://example.com/) is NOT RECOMMENDED, since the Client ID Metadata Document would then be served at the root of the domain, conflicting with existing content that may be published there. A Client Identifier URL MUST be associated with a set of client metadata, in the form of a Client ID Metadata Document as described in , available at the Client Identifier URL.

Client ID Metadata Document The Client ID Metadata Document is a JSON () document containing the metadata of the client. The client metadata values are the values defined in the OAuth Dynamic Client Registration Metadata OAuth Parameters registry https://www.iana.org/assignments/oauth-parameters/oauth-parameters.xhtml#client-metadata as established by . The Client ID Metadata Document MUST contain a client_id property whose value MUST match the Client Identifier URL, which MUST also match the URL that the authorization server used to fetch the document; comparisons MUST be made using simple string comparison as defined in Section 6.2.1 of . The authorization server is responsible for validating this match as part of processing the fetched document. The Client ID Metadata Document MUST be served with a 200 OK HTTP status code. The Client ID Metadata Document MAY also be served with more specific content types as long as the response is JSON and conforms to application/<AS-defined>+json. Other specifications MAY place additional restrictions on the contents of the Client ID Metadata Document accepted by authorization servers implementing their specification. For example, requiring the token_endpoint_auth_method property be set to "private_key_jwt", effectively requiring confidential clients. TBD: We may want a property such as client_id_expires_at for indicating that the client is ephemeral and not valid after a given timestamp, especially for documents issued by a service for development purposes.

Credential and Key Material Restrictions As there is no way to establish a shared secret to be used with client metadata documents, the following restrictions apply to the contents of the Client ID Metadata Document:

• the token_endpoint_auth_method property MUST NOT include client_secret_post, client_secret_basic, client_secret_jwt, or any other method based around a shared symmetric secret
• the client_secret and client_secret_expires_at properties MUST NOT be used
• private key material MUST NOT be included in the Client ID Metadata Document; only public keys, such as those published via the jwks or jwks_uri properties, are permitted

See for more details on establishing client authentication using public/private key pairs.

Redirect URL Registration According to , the authorization server MUST require registration of redirect URLs, and MUST ensure that the redirect URL in an authorization request is an exact match, using simple string comparison, of a registered redirect URL. This method of client information discovery establishes registered redirect URL(s) when the authorization server fetches the contents of the Client ID Metadata Document. This specification is not limited to grant types that use a redirect URL. For grant types that do not involve a redirect URL, such as the Client Credentials Grant, or extension grants such as Token Exchange, the requirements of this section do not apply, since no redirect URL is registered or used. The other mechanisms described in this specification, namely client identification and client metadata discovery, apply regardless of which grant type is used.

Relationship with software_statement The software_statement parameter defined in MAY be used together with a Client Identifier URL, for example by including it as a property of the Client ID Metadata Document. Doing so can provide the authorization server with an additional, independently verifiable signal about the client's identity or provenance. Operators combining software statements with this specification should note that the software statement is no longer presented inline by the client during the authorization request; instead, it is retrieved by the authorization server as part of fetching the Client ID Metadata Document. This means the trustworthiness of the software statement's claims depends not only on the issuer's signature over the statement itself, but also on the integrity of the process used to retrieve the Client ID Metadata Document (including the protections described in ), as well as the relationship between the client instance and the Client ID Metadata Document. Authorization servers should evaluate whether this combination meets their assurance requirements before relying on software statements delivered this way.

Client Information Discovery Authorization servers SHOULD automatically fetch the Client ID Metadata Document at the Client Identifier URL to retrieve the client metadata. Authorization servers SHOULD periodically re-fetch the Client ID Metadata Document as the contents may change over time. See and for additional considerations. An authorization server MAY instead associate a Client Identifier URL with client metadata through other means, such as by pre-registering the URL as described in . The Client ID Metadata Document MUST be served with a 200 OK HTTP status code. The authorization server MUST treat all other HTTP status codes as an error response, as described in . The authorization server MUST NOT automatically follow HTTP redirects when fetching the Client ID Metadata Document. Special care should be taken to avoid Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) Attacks when fetching Client ID Metadata Documents, as described in .

Metadata Discovery Errors If the authorization server attempts to fetch the Client ID Metadata Document, and fetching the metadata document fails, the authorization server SHOULD abort the authorization request.

Metadata Caching The authorization server MAY cache the client metadata it discovers at the Client ID Metadata Document URL. The authorization server SHOULD respect HTTP cache headers when caching client metadata, but MAY define its own upper and/or lower bounds on an acceptable cache lifetime as well. The authorization server MUST NOT cache error responses. The authorization server also MUST NOT cache documents which are invalid or malformed.

Authorization Server Metadata Authorization servers that publish Authorization Server Metadata MUST include the following property to signal support for Client ID Metadata Documents as described in this specification.

client_id_metadata_document_supported:

OPTIONAL. Boolean value specifying whether the authorization server supports retrieving client metadata from a client_id URL as described in this specification.

This enables clients to avoid sending the user to a dead end, by only redirecting the user to an authorization server that supports this specification. Otherwise, the client would redirect the user and the user would be met with an error about an invalid client as described in .

Implementation Considerations

Supporting Both Pre-Registered and Unregistered Clients If an authorization server wishes to support clients using Client ID Metadata Documents as well as clients where the authorization server generates the client_id, it SHOULD ensure that the client_id strings it generates do not start with https://. Given that most implementations of authorization servers generate random values for the client_id, this is not expected to be a problem in practice. The presence of the https:// scheme in a client_id is not by itself a reliable signal of whether a client was registered using this specification, such as if an authorization server issues https:// URLs as client_id values for other purposes like vanity identifiers or stable developer-facing identifiers, without treating them as Client Identifier URLs to be fetched. The determining factor for whether a client_id is subject to this specification is whether the authorization server fetches, or otherwise associates, a Client ID Metadata Document for that client_id. Authorization servers that support both approaches need a reliable way, internal to their own implementation, to distinguish clients registered via this specification from those registered by other means.

Pre-Registering Client Identifier URLs An authorization server MAY pre-register Client Identifier URLs. This is a valid deployment pattern that leverages the namespacing and key-binding properties of Client Identifier URLs described in this specification, while not relying on the authorization server automatically fetching client metadata at request time. The authorization server SHOULD fetch the Client ID Metadata Document at the URL at the time of establishing this pre-registration, although other means of registering the metadata document are also valid. This deployment pattern is expected to be common in enterprise environments where enterprise customers wish to explicitly onboard particular clients into their environment. The Client Identifier URL can be registered with the identity provider, including establishing client authentication as described in , where it can behave the same way as a pre-registered client. There is no obligation to support dynamic client onboarding by using the mechanisms described in this document.

Security Considerations In addition to the security considerations in OAuth 2.0 Core , and OAuth 2.0 Threat Model and Security Considerations , and the additional considerations apply.

Relationship between redirect_uris and client_id or client_uri An authorization server may impose restrictions or relationships between the redirect_uris and the client_id or client_uri properties, for example to restrict the redirect_uri to the same-origin as the Client ID Metadata Document. Without restrictions like these, there are potential trust and safety issues where the client attempts to impersonate a more well-known client or otherwise act in a way which is malicious or puts the end-user at risk. Having no restrictions on the relationship between redirect_uris and client_id or client_uri was a common practice with 's Client ID Documents, so this ability is preserved for backwards compatibility between and this specification. Some restrictions on redirect_uris can make developer usage of Client ID Metadata Documents difficult. discusses how a service offered by the authorization server can enable development usage of Client ID Metadata Documents for authorization servers that impose restrictions on the redirect_uri.

Client Authentication Since the client establishes its own registration data at the authorization server, prior coordination of client credentials is not possible. However, establishing credentials at the authorization server by using authentication methods that use public/private key pairs is possible by publishing the public key in their metadata document. Clients that are capable of maintaining private key material and performing client authentication SHOULD do so with an acceptable method, such as a method in the OAuth Token Endpoint Authentication Methods registry. For example, the client MAY include the following properties in its metadata document to establish a public key and advertise the private_key_jwt authentication method defined in : This establishes this client as a confidential client, and any communication with the authorization server MUST include client authentication of the registered type. When a client declares token_endpoint_auth_method as private_key_jwt, the authorization server MUST require client authentication according to using the corresponding key discovered from the client's metadata document. The particular method of how the client manages the private key is out of scope of this specification, but may include manual provisioning or methods such as "Attestation Based Client Authentication" or "OAuth SPIFFE Client Authentication" . For example, the client developer could run a Client Attester Backend, using a native application's platform-specific APIs to authenticate to the backend service, where the private key corresponding to the jwks_uri key is managed by the backend service. This would allow a mobile app to request JWTs from the backend service that the mobile app could then use as client authentication to the authorization server.

Changes in Client Identifier URL The Client Identifier URL is the client's identity from the perspective of the authorization server. Because OAuth treats two different client_id values as two entirely unrelated clients, a client that changes its Client Identifier URL is, as far as any authorization server is concerned, a brand new client with no relationship to the previous one. Any grants, tokens, or user consent that had been associated with the old URL may not be transferable to the new URL, and users may be prompted to re-authorize as if encountering the client for the first time. Clients should therefore treat their Client Identifier URL with the same degree of stability as they would treat any persistent identity. Operators should plan for the URL to remain resolvable and under their control indefinitely, as loss of control over the URL — for example through domain expiry or reassignment — would allow a third party to assume the client's identity.

Changes in Client Metadata Authorization servers should be aware that Client ID Metadata Documents can change over time since they are served from URLs under client control. Authorization servers should consider the security implications when metadata properties change, such as redirect_uris, token_endpoint_auth_method, scope, grant_types, jwks, jwks_uri, or display properties like client_name and logo_uri. Significant changes to client metadata may affect the trust relationship between the authorization server and the client, and could impact the validity of previously granted user consent. Authorization servers may choose to invalidate existing grants, require fresh user consent, or implement other policies when certain types of metadata changes are detected. The appropriate response will depend on the authorization server's risk tolerance and operational requirements.

Changes in Client Keys If the authorization server notices that the jwks, jwks_uri or the contents at the jwks_uri have changed compared to the last time it fetched the metadata, the authorization server may take actions such as revoking any tokens issued to this client, or revoking the user's consent for this client. The particular actions to take are left up to the discretion of the authorization server based on its own risk assessment. However, periodic rotation of keys can also be expected as good security hygiene by the client.

OAuth Phishing Attacks Authorization servers SHOULD fetch the client_id metadata document provided in the authorization request in order to provide users with additional information about the request, such as the application name and logo. If the server does not fetch the Client ID Metadata Document, then it SHOULD take additional measures to ensure the user is provided with as much information as possible about the request. The authorization server SHOULD display the hostname of the client_id on the authorization interface, in addition to displaying the fetched client information if any. Displaying the hostname helps users know that they are authorizing the expected application. If fetching the Client ID Metadata Document fails for any reason, the client_id URL is the only piece of information the user has as an indication of which application they are authorizing.

Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) Attacks Authorization servers fetching the Client ID Metadata Document and resolving URLs contained within it should be aware of possible SSRF attacks. Authorization servers MUST NOT fetch a Client ID Metadata Document URL or any URLs contained within a Client ID Metadata Document that resolve to special-use IP addresses as defined in . Authorization servers deployed for development or testing purposes MAY relax this restriction to allow fetching from loopback addresses when the authorization server itself is also running on a loopback address and the resolved address matches the same loopback interface. Authorization servers MUST NOT apply this exception in production deployments, since doing so would allow an attacker-controlled Client Identifier URL to cause the authorization server to make requests against itself or other services on the loopback interface or special-use IP addresses. Authorization servers SHOULD consider network policies or other measures to prevent making requests to special-use addresses. Authorization servers which support non-http-based URI schemes are at additional risk of SSRF attacks. Authorization servers SHOULD ensure they only fetch or parse URLs with known and supported URI schemes. This can help avoid leading to compromises if a client uses a URI scheme such as javascript: in a metadata property.

Maximum Response Size for Client ID Metadata Documents Since the authorization server does not control the size of the Client ID Metadata Document served by the client, it cannot limit the size of the response itself. Instead, authorization servers SHOULD limit the amount of data they read and process when fetching a Client ID Metadata Document, for example by stopping after a maximum number of bytes and treating the response as an error if that limit is reached before the document has been fully read. The recommended maximum size to read is 5 kilobytes.

Displaying Logos to End-Users Authorization servers that wish to make use of the logo_uri property within Client ID Metadata Document SHOULD prefetch the file at logo_uri and cache it for the cache duration of the Client ID Metadata Document. This allows for moderation tools to verify the file contents (e.g., preventing usage of logos that look like other logos), as well as preventing the logo from being dynamically changed to confuse an end-user. Caching of the logo_uri response can additionally prevent cross-domain tracking through the logo_uri being requested by the client, since the cached file would be served not from the remote URI but instead from a URI that the Authorization server trusts.

Client ID Domain Trust The authorization server may choose to have its own heuristics and policies around the trust of domain names used as client IDs. For example, the authorization server could require that the first 100 users to authorize a client_id see an additional warning screen before the OAuth consent screen. The authorization server could check attributes of the domain reputation, such as how recently the domain was registered, and put up extra warnings for new domains. An authorization server may also maintain allowlists of trusted domain patterns, such as treating any Client Identifier URL under *.example.com as belonging to a known and trusted operator, and apply reduced friction for clients matching such patterns.

CIMD Services This section describes a pattern, referred to as a CIMD Service, through which an authorization server can offer developers a way to obtain Client Identifier URIs for use during development, without requiring the developer to host a publicly accessible document themselves. Operating a CIMD Service has security and reputation implications, since it is effectively acting as a proxy for static client registration for any client it provisions. An authorization server operating a CIMD Service should ensure that clients provisioned this way are clearly distinguished from other clients when presented to end users, and should consider the implications on the trust model described in this specification, since a CIMD Service intermediates the relationship between the client and the authorization server rather than the client publishing its own metadata directly.

Privacy Considerations

Authorization Server Fetch Side Channel When the authorization server fetches a Client Identifier URL or other URLs referenced within a Client ID Metadata Document, the act of fetching may reveal information about end-user activity to the operator of the server hosting those URLs. For example, the timing and frequency of requests to a Client Identifier URI can indicate when, and how often, users are attempting to authorize with a particular authorization server. Authorization servers that fetch client metadata on every authorization request, rather than relying on cached data, are more susceptible to this side channel. Authorization servers SHOULD respect cache headers as described in to reduce the frequency of unnecessary fetches.

URLs Referenced in Client ID Metadata Documents Client ID Metadata Documents may contain URLs, such as logo_uri, jwks_uri, policy_uri, or tos_uri, that the authorization server fetches directly or exposes to the end user, for example by rendering them or linking to them in the authorization interface. When these URLs are fetched by the authorization server, or their content is served to the end user's browser, they may create cross-domain tracking opportunities for the operator of the referenced URL. As described in , authorization servers that fetch and cache the content of logo_uri rather than linking to it directly mitigate the risk of cross-domain tracking through logo requests initiated by the end user's browser. Authorization servers should consider similar precautions for other URLs contained in the Client ID Metadata Document before exposing them to end users.

IANA Considerations

OAuth Authorization Server Metadata Registry The following authorization server metadata value is defined by this specification and registered in the IANA "OAuth Authorization Server Metadata" registry established in OAuth 2.0 Authorization Server Metadata .

• Metadata Name: client_id_metadata_document_supported:
• Metadata Description: JSON boolean value specifying whether the authorization server supports retrieving client metadata from a client_id URL.
• Change Controller: IETF
• Specification Document: of [draft-ietf-oauth-client-id-metadata-document-02]

References Normative References A Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) is a compact sequence of characters that identifies an abstract or physical resource. This specification defines the generic URI syntax and a process for resolving URI references that might be in relative form, along with guidelines and security considerations for the use of URIs on the Internet. The URI syntax defines a grammar that is a superset of all valid URIs, allowing an implementation to parse the common components of a URI reference without knowing the scheme-specific requirements of every possible identifier. This specification does not define a generative grammar for URIs; that task is performed by the individual specifications of each URI scheme. [STANDARDS-TRACK] The OAuth 2.0 authorization framework enables a third-party application to obtain limited access to an HTTP service, either on behalf of a resource owner by orchestrating an approval interaction between the resource owner and the HTTP service, or by allowing the third-party application to obtain access on its own behalf. This specification replaces and obsoletes the OAuth 1.0 protocol described in RFC 5849. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document gives additional security considerations for OAuth, beyond those in the OAuth 2.0 specification, based on a comprehensive threat model for the OAuth 2.0 protocol. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes. This memo reiterates the assignment of an IPv4 address block (192.0.0.0/24) to IANA. It also instructs IANA to restructure its IPv4 and IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registries. Upon restructuring, the aforementioned registries will record all special-purpose address blocks, maintaining a common set of information regarding each address block. This specification defines mechanisms for dynamically registering OAuth 2.0 clients with authorization servers. Registration requests send a set of desired client metadata values to the authorization server. The resulting registration responses return a client identifier to use at the authorization server and the client metadata values registered for the client. The client can then use this registration information to communicate with the authorization server using the OAuth 2.0 protocol. This specification also defines a set of common client metadata fields and values for clients to use during registration. JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) is a lightweight, text-based, language-independent data interchange format. It was derived from the ECMAScript Programming Language Standard. JSON defines a small set of formatting rules for the portable representation of structured data. This document removes inconsistencies with other specifications of JSON, repairs specification errors, and offers experience-based interoperability guidance. 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 authorization server, including its endpoint locations and authorization server capabilities. This document describes best current security practice for OAuth 2.0. It updates and extends the threat model and security advice given in RFCs 6749, 6750, and 6819 to incorporate practical experiences gathered since OAuth 2.0 was published and covers new threats relevant due to the broader application of OAuth 2.0. Further, it deprecates some modes of operation that are deemed less secure or even insecure. In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings. Informative References Inrupt NAT.Consulting Yubico Self-Issued Consulting Google Disney independent Self-Issued Consulting Sikt Yubico independent Connect2id MATTR Bundesdruckerei SPRIND This specification defines an extension to the OAuth 2.0 protocol [RFC6749] that enables a client instance to include a key-bound attestation when interacting with an Authorization Server or Resource Server. This mechanism allows a client instance to prove its authenticity verified by a client attester without revealing its target audience to that attester. It may also serve as a mechanism for client authentication as per OAuth 2.0. Defakto Security Defakto Security NIST IBM Cisco Systems This specification profiles the Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants [RFC7521], the JWT Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants [RFC7523], and OAuth 2.0 Attestation-Based Client Authentication [I-D.draft-ietf-oauth-attestation-based-client-auth] to enable the use of SPIFFE Verifiable Identity Documents (SVIDs) as client credentials in OAuth 2.0. It defines how OAuth clients with SPIFFE credentials can authenticate to OAuth authorization servers using their JWT-SVIDs, WIT-SVIDs, or X.509-SVIDs without the need for client secrets. This approach enhances security by enabling seamless integration between SPIFFE-enabled workloads and OAuth authorization servers while eliminating the need to distribute and manage shared secrets such as static client secrets. This specification defines the use of a JSON Web Token (JWT) Bearer Token as a means for requesting an OAuth 2.0 access token as well as for client authentication. The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is a stateless application-level protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypertext information systems. This document defines HTTP caches and the associated header fields that control cache behavior or indicate cacheable response messages. This document obsoletes RFC 7234.

CIMD Services for Development Purposes This appendix describes a non-normative pattern, referred to as a CIMD Service, that an authorization server MAY offer to make development against this specification easier. An authorization server may have restrictions on what it accepts as valid redirect_uris, for instance, limiting them to the same-origin as the client_id or client_uri properties, as discussed in . However, if an authorization server does place additional restrictions on the accepted redirect_uris then it is RECOMMENDED that it provide at least one CIMD Service which is exempt from these restrictions, to support developers as described below. When developing applications against an authorization server which uses this specification, developers often encounter the issue of "how do I serve a Client ID Metadata Document at a publicly accessible https URL whilst developing my application on my localhost?". To enable developers to author applications on their machines, without exposing their machines to the public internet, an authorization server MAY offer a CIMD Service. A CIMD Service is a web service through which developers can acquire a stable Client Identifier URL that resolves to a Client ID Metadata Document. This service MAY expire clients from time to time, and MAY require developers to provide additional information about the client being developed. The only requirement on a CIMD Service is that it MUST return valid Client ID Metadata Documents for the client_ids that it provisions, or return a status code indicating an error response (e.g., 404 Not Found). How a CIMD Service creates or stores metadata documents is outside of the scope of this document. By providing at least one CIMD Service, an authorization server can enable developers to create applications, and still indicate to non-technical people that the client that they are about to authorize is currently under-development and may not be trustworthy or secure. Operating a CIMD Service effectively means the authorization server is performing a form of static client registration on behalf of the developer, mediated through a URL rather than a direct registration API. Authorization servers offering a CIMD Service should consider the security and reputation implications discussed in , and should ensure that clients provisioned through a CIMD Service are not afforded the same level of trust as clients that publish their own Client ID Metadata Document.

Acknowledgments The idea of using URIs as the client_id in OAuth based authorization requests is not new, and has previously been specified in varying ways by , , and . This specification is largely inspired by the work of Aaron Coburn, elf Pavlik, and Dmitri Zagidulin in their specification which defined dereferenceable Client Identifier Documents. The authors would like to thank the following people for their contributions and reviews of this specification: Bobby Tiernay, Brian Campbell, Bryan Newbold, Dick Hardt, Filip Skokan, Jeff Lombardo, Joe DeCock, Justin Richer, Leif Johansson, Matthieu Sieben, Meghna Dubey, Orie Steele, Pieter Kasselman, and Takahiko Kawasaki.

Document History (This appendix to be deleted by the RFC editor in the final specification.) -02

• Clarified loopback exception for SSRF checks
• More strongly recommend doing client authentication
• Clarified scope of applicability in the Introduction
• Renamed "client identifier" to "Client Identifier URL" to avoid implying all OAuth client identifiers are URLs
• Reformatted Client Identifier URL requirements as a list, and aligned terminology with RFC3986 (userinfo, authority)
• Clarified that Client Identifier URL comparison uses simple string comparison without default port normalization
• Clarified that URL shorteners are incompatible with the no-redirect requirement
• Clarified the relationship between associating and fetching client metadata
• Split "what is in the document" and "how to fetch the document" into separate top-level sections
• Moved the 200 OK requirement to the fetching process rather than the document definition
• Split client credential/key restrictions into their own subsection, and added a discussion of software_statement
• Moved Client ID Metadata Documents for Development Purposes to a non-normative appendix, and added discussion of its security and reputation implications
• Clarified applicability of redirect URI registration requirements to non-redirect-based grant types
• Moved Supporting Both Pre-Registered and Unregistered Clients and Pre-Registering Client ID Metadata Document URLs to a new Implementation Considerations section
• Removed normative language from Security Considerations where it was purely explanatory
• Clarified the SSRF loopback exception applies only to development and testing deployments
• Clarified the maximum response size guidance applies to how much data the authorization server reads, not the size of the file itself
• Added discussion of domain allowlists to Client ID Domain Trust
• Added a Privacy Considerations section

-01

• Added security consideration for changes in Client Metadata
• Added guidance for an AS that supports both registered and unregistered clients
• Require HTTP 200 response for fetching metadata
• Added additional SSRF considerations

-00

• Initial draft