A Comprehensive Roadmap for OAuth 2.0 Standards and Drafts
draft-chen-oauth-roadmap-01
This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D).
Anyone may submit an I-D to the IETF.
This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the
IETF standards process.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Meiling Chen , Li Su | ||
| Last updated | 2026-05-06 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-chen-oauth-roadmap-01
OAuth Working Group M. Chen
Internet-Draft L. Su
Intended status: Informational China Mobile
Expires: 7 November 2026 6 May 2026
A Comprehensive Roadmap for OAuth 2.0 Standards and Drafts
draft-chen-oauth-roadmap-01
Abstract
The OAuth 2.0 ecosystem has expanded significantly since the
publication of RFC 6749, resulting in a complex landscape of
extensions, security best practices (BCPs), and application-specific
profiles. This complexity can be daunting for implementers,
architects, and security auditors. This document serves as a
comprehensive roadmap to navigate this landscape. It categorizes key
RFCs and active Internet-Drafts into functional areas, explains the
relationships between them, and provides context on their evolution.
The goal is to help readers understand the current state-of-the-art,
select the appropriate specifications for their use cases, and follow
the latest security best practices, while also offering a glimpse
into the future directions of the framework.
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 https://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 7 November 2026.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2026 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Chen & Su Expires 7 November 2026 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Roadmap May 2026
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Core & Foundational Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Security Framework & Best Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Overall Security Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. Protecting the Authorization Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.3. Securing Access Tokens (Sender-Constraining) . . . . . . 5
4.4. Mitigating Logical & Implementation Flaws . . . . . . . . 6
4.5. Advanced Client Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Token Management & Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Client Registration, Metadata & Discovery . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Grant Types & Assertion Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Advanced Authorization Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. Client-Specific Profiles & BCPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. Relationship with OpenID Connect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11. Advanced & Emerging Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
12. Historical & Superseded Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
14. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
15. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
16. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
16.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
16.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix A. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction
This document categorizes specifications within the OAuth ecosystem
into three groups:
* *Published RFCs*: Form the cornerstone of current standards and
best practices.
Chen & Su Expires 7 November 2026 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Roadmap May 2026
* *Active Drafts*: Represent features and future directions actively
being developed by the working group.
* *Historical Drafts*: Are expired or superseded but provide
valuable context for understanding the design decisions and
technical evolution of OAuth.
This roadmap is intended to guide implementers, architects, and
security professionals through the extensive library of OAuth
specifications, helping them select the appropriate documents for
their use cases.
+-------------------------------------------------+
| Core: RFC 6749 (OAuth 2.0) |
| Core: RFC 6750 (Bearer Token) |
+------------------------+------------------------+
|
+------------------+------------------+
| |
+-----------v------------+ +-----------v-----------+
| OAuth 2.1 (Draft) | |Security BCP (RFC 9700)|
|(Consolidates & Hardens)| | (Overall Guidance) |
+------------------------+ +-----------------------+
|
+-----------+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Foundational Extensions & Security Mechanisms |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| - RFC 7636 (PKCE): Protects code flow |
| - RFC 9126 (PAR) / RFC 9101 (JAR): Protect authorization requests |
| - RFC 9449 (DPoP) / RFC 8705 (mTLS): Sender-constrains tokens |
| - RFC 8707 (Resource Indicators): Prevents token misuse |
| - RFC 7519 (JWT)/ RFC 9068(JWT AT Profile): Token format & profile |
| - RFC 8414 (AS Metadata): Enables server discovery |
| |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|
+-----------+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Advanced Capabilities & Grant Types |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| - RFC 8693 (Token Exchange): Service-to-service delegation |
| - RFC 8628 (Device Grant): Input-constrained devices |
| - RFC 9396 (RAR): Fine-grained authorization |
| |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 1: High-Level Relationship of Core OAuth 2.0 Specifications
Chen & Su Expires 7 November 2026 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Roadmap May 2026
2. Terminology
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 RFC2119 [RFC8174].
Readers are expected to be familiar with the terms and concepts
described in the core OAuth 2.0 Framework [RFC6749].
3. Core & Foundational Documents
* *RFC 6749*, The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework (S): The seminal
specification for OAuth 2.0, defining the core roles (client,
resource owner, authorization server, resource server), grant
types, and authorization flows.
* *RFC 6750*, The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework: Bearer Token
Usage (S): Defines the most common access token type, the "Bearer"
token. A bearer token can be used by anyone who possesses it,
making its transport and storage security critical.
* *draft-ietf-oauth-v2-1*, The OAuth 2.1 Authorization Framework
(Draft): This effort consolidates and simplifies the original
framework for modern applications. It formalizes a decade of
security best practices by *mandating* PKCE, redirect URI exact
matching, and the use of the Authorization Code flow. It
explicitly *deprecates* insecure grants like the Implicit Grant
and the Resource Owner Password Credentials Grant, providing a
more secure baseline for new deployments.
4. Security Framework & Best Practices
4.1. Overall Security Guidance
* *RFC 6819*, OAuth 2.0 Threat Model and Security Considerations
(I): An early comprehensive security document that analyzes
various threat models (e.g., token leakage, open redirectors) and
proposes countermeasures. While still useful, many of its
recommendations have been superseded by RFC9700.
* *RFC 9700*, OAuth 2.0 Security Best Current Practice (B): The
current definitive security guide. It consolidates the latest
security lessons and provides a concrete set of recommendations
that all modern implementations SHOULD follow.
Chen & Su Expires 7 November 2026 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Roadmap May 2026
* *draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-update* (Draft): The draft name
for the work that eventually became RFC9700, representing the
continuous evolution of security guidance within the working
group.
4.2. Protecting the Authorization Flow
* *RFC 7636*, Proof Key for Code Exchange (PKCE) (S): Protects the
Authorization Code flow from interception attacks. *Originally
designed for public clients (like mobile apps) that cannot
securely store a secret, PKCE is now a BCP for all client types,
including confidential ones*, as it provides a robust defense-in-
depth against code injection.
* *RFC 9101*, JWT-Secured Authorization Request (JAR) (S): Ensures
the integrity and authenticity of authorization request parameters
by packaging them into a signed (and optionally encrypted) JWT.
This prevents attackers from tampering with parameters like
redirect_uri or scope.
* *RFC 9126*, Pushed Authorization Requests (PAR) (S): Enhances
security and privacy by allowing a client to push its
authorization request parameters directly to the authorization
server via a secure backchannel. This returns a request_uri which
the client then sends through the browser. *PAR protects request
parameters from being exposed to the user agent (browser) or in
server logs*, and it works very well in combination with JAR for a
fully secured request.
4.3. Securing Access Tokens (Sender-Constraining)
* *RFC 8705*, Mutual-TLS Client Authentication and Certificate-Bound
Access Tokens (S): A powerful mechanism that provides two
functions: first, it defines a strict client authentication method
using TLS certificates. Second, it enables the binding of access
tokens to a specific client certificate, ensuring that even if a
token is stolen, it cannot be used by an attacker who does not
possess the client's private key.
* *RFC 9449*, Demonstrating Proof-of-Possession (DPoP) (S): A
lightweight, application-level sender-constraint mechanism. It
binds a token to a specific client's public/private key pair
without relying on mutual-TLS. This makes it suitable for
browser-based applications and other environments where mTLS is
difficult to deploy.
Chen & Su Expires 7 November 2026 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Roadmap May 2026
* *draft-ietf-oauth-refresh-token-expiration* (Draft): Provides
critical security best practices for refresh tokens, including
recommendations for rotation (issuing a new refresh token with
each use) and setting expiration policies to mitigate the risks of
refresh token leakage.
4.4. Mitigating Logical & Implementation Flaws
* *RFC 8707*, Resource Indicators for OAuth 2.0 (S): Allows a client
to specify the intended resource server (API) during the
authorization request. This enables the Authorization Server to
issue an audience-restricted token, preventing a token intended
for one API from being replayed at another.
* *RFC 9207*, Authorization Server Issuer Identification (S):
Prevents "mix-up" attacks where a malicious authorization server
could trick a client into sending a code to the wrong token
endpoint. It requires the AS to declare its issuer identifier and
clients/RSs to validate it.
* *draft-ietf-oauth-mix-up-mitigation* (Draft): Provides
comprehensive strategies to mitigate various "mix-up attacks"
where a credential (e.g., a code, token, or client secret) might
be sent to the wrong entity, expanding on the protections offered
by RFC9207.
* *draft-ietf-oauth-cross-device-security* (Draft): Specifically
analyzes and proposes mitigations for security threats in cross-
device flows, such as the Device Authorization Grant (RFC8628).
4.5. Advanced Client Authentication
* *draft-ietf-oauth-attestation-based-client-auth* (Draft): Defines
a client authentication method where the client must provide an
attestation from a trusted third party (e.g., a device
manufacturer or platform vendor), suitable for high-security
scenarios where the client's integrity must be verified.
* *draft-ietf-oauth-spiffe-client-auth* (Draft): Defines client
authentication using SPIFFE SVIDs (Verifiable Identity Documents),
designed to provide strong, cryptographic workload identity in
cloud-native and service mesh environments.
5. Token Management & Formats
* *RFC 7009*, Token Revocation (S): Defines an endpoint for clients
to proactively invalidate a refresh or access token, for example,
when a user logs out.
Chen & Su Expires 7 November 2026 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Roadmap May 2026
* *RFC 7662*, Token Introspection (S): Defines an endpoint for
resource servers to check the validity and metadata of a token
with the authorization server. This is particularly useful for
opaque (non-JWT) tokens.
* *RFC 7519*, JSON Web Token (JWT) (S): Defines the JWT format, the
de facto standard for structured, self-contained tokens in the
OAuth ecosystem.
* *RFC 8725*, JSON Web Token Best Current Practices (B): Provides
essential security best practices for implementing and using JWTs,
such as algorithm validation (alg header) and claim verification.
- *draft-ietf-oauth-rfc8725bis* (Draft): An effort to update
RFC8725 with new security advice and clarifications based on
implementation experience.
* *RFC 9068*, JWT Profile for OAuth 2.0 Access Tokens (S): An
official profile defining a recommended set of claims (like iss,
exp, aud, client_id) for using a JWT as an OAuth 2.0 access token,
promoting interoperability.
6. Client Registration, Metadata & Discovery
* *RFC 7591*, Dynamic Client Registration (S): Allows OAuth clients
to register with an authorization server programmatically,
automating the onboarding process.
* *RFC 7592*, Dynamic Client Registration Management (S):
Complements RFC7591 by defining a protocol for updating and
deleting client registrations.
* *RFC 8414*, Authorization Server Metadata (S): Allows an AS to
publish its configuration details (like endpoint URLs and
supported capabilities) at a well-known URI, enabling dynamic
discovery by clients.
* *draft-ietf-oauth-client-id-metadata-document* (Draft): Proposes a
mechanism for clients to also publish a metadata document,
declaring their software information and configuration to enhance
transparency and security for authorization servers.
7. Grant Types & Assertion Framework
* *RFC 7521*, Assertion Framework (S): Provides a general framework
for using assertions (like SAML or JWT) for client authentication
and as authorization grants. This is foundational for service-to-
service communication.
Chen & Su Expires 7 November 2026 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Roadmap May 2026
* *RFC 7523*, JWT Profile for Authorization Grants (S): A concrete
implementation of RFC7521 using JWTs as assertions. This allows a
client to use a JWT to request an access token without a direct
user interaction.
- *draft-ietf-oauth-rfc7523bis* (Draft): Aims to update RFC7523
to address ambiguities and align with modern security
practices.
* *RFC 8628*, Device Authorization Grant (S): The "Device Flow,"
designed for input-constrained devices (like smart TVs or CLIs)
that cannot host a web browser for user authentication.
* *RFC 8693*, Token Exchange (S): A versatile grant type that allows
a service to exchange one type of security token for another.
*This is the cornerstone of modern microservices security,
enabling use cases like impersonation (a frontend service acting
on behalf of a user) and delegation (a service calling another
service with a more restricted token).*
* *draft-ietf-oauth-identity-assertion-authz-grant* (Draft):
Proposes a new grant type that allows a client to use an identity
assertion (like an ID Token from an external IdP) to obtain an
access token, streamlining federated identity scenarios.
8. Advanced Authorization Capabilities
* *RFC 9396*, Rich Authorization Requests (RAR) (S): Extends OAuth
to allow clients to request structured, fine-grained authorization
(e.g., access to specific bank accounts with specific transaction
limits) beyond simple string-based scopes.
* *RFC 9901*, Selective Disclosure for JSON Web Tokens (S):
specifies a mechanism for selectively disclosing individual claims
within a JSON Web Token (JWT) by replacing them with salted
hashes, allowing a holder to reveal only a subset of information
to a verifier while maintaining cryptographic proof of the data's
integrity and origin.
* *draft-ietf-oauth-transaction-tokens* (Draft): Explores the use of
short-lived tokens bound to a specific transaction to enhance
security for high-risk operations like financial payments,
building on ideas from RAR and sender-constraining.
Chen & Su Expires 7 November 2026 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Roadmap May 2026
9. Client-Specific Profiles & BCPs
* *RFC 8252*, OAuth 2.0 for Native Apps (B): Provides best current
practices for implementing OAuth 2.0 in native mobile and desktop
applications. It recommends using external user agents (like the
system browser) and custom URI schemes or claimed "https" schemes
for handling redirects.
* *draft-ietf-oauth-browser-based-apps* (Draft): The definitive
guide for implementing OAuth 2.0 in Single-Page Applications
(SPAs). It *recommends the Authorization Code flow with PKCE and
deprecates the Implicit Grant*. It also provides guidance on token
storage (e.g., using backend-for-frontend patterns) and mitigating
threats like Cross-Site Scripting (XSS).
* *draft-ietf-oauth-first-party-apps* (Draft): Offers specific
security and implementation guidance for first-party applications,
where the client and authorization server belong to the same
entity, allowing for certain optimizations while maintaining
security.
10. Relationship with OpenID Connect
While this document focuses on the OAuth 2.0 authorization framework,
it is crucial to mention OpenID Connect (OIDC) [OIDC]. OIDC is a
simple identity layer built on top of OAuth 2.0 that provides
authentication and enables clients to verify the identity of the end-
user. Many modern OAuth deployments use OIDC for user login and to
obtain an ID Token, and then leverage standard OAuth mechanisms for
API authorization using the Access Token. Understanding the
distinction and synergy between OAuth (for "what a user can do") and
OIDC (for "who the user is") is fundamental for many use cases.
It is also worth noting the historical influence of the OpenID
Foundation on the IETF OAuth working group. Several key OAuth
specifications were heavily inspired by, and are often compatible
with, earlier standards from the OpenID Connect suite. For example,
the discovery mechanisms in OAuth 2.0 Authorization Server Metadata
[RFC8414] are based on the earlier OpenID Connect Discovery
specification. Similarly, OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration
[RFC7591] builds upon its OpenID Connect counterpart. The concept of
passing authorization request parameters in a JWT was also first
specified in OpenID Connect Core before being formally adopted in the
IETF as JWT-Secured Authorization Request (JAR) [RFC9101].
Chen & Su Expires 7 November 2026 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Roadmap May 2026
11. Advanced & Emerging Technologies
Specifications in this area often intersect with decentralized
identity, Verifiable Credentials (VCs), and privacy-enhancing
technologies.
* *draft-ietf-oauth-sd-jwt-vc* (Draft): Defines how to carry
Verifiable Credentials (VCs) using Selectively Disclosable JWTs
(SD-JWTs), allowing users to disclose only necessary identity
attributes during an OAuth flow, enhancing user privacy.
* *draft-ietf-oauth-status-list* (Draft): Proposes an efficient and
privacy-preserving mechanism for checking the revocation status of
credentials (like VCs) at scale.
* *draft-ietf-oauth-identity-chaining* (Draft): Explores a mechanism
to securely pass and link multiple identity and authorization
contexts during token exchange, forming a verifiable "identity
chain." This is highly relevant for complex delegation scenarios
in microservices.
* *RFC 9635*, Grant Negotiation and Authorization Protocol (S):
specifies the Grant Negotiation and Authorization Protocol (GNAP),
a flexible mechanism for delegating authorization by allowing a
client and an authorization server to negotiate the terms of
access to APIs and user information over a series of
cryptographically secured interactions.
12. Historical & Superseded Documents
These expired drafts are valuable for understanding the evolution of
OAuth. They represent early explorations of ideas, some of which
evolved into the standards we use today.
* *draft-ietf-oauth-authentication* / *draft-ietf-oauth-web-
delegation*: Very early drafts that explored building an
authentication layer on top of OAuth 2.0, serving as precursors to
OpenID Connect.
* *draft-ietf-oauth-v2-http-mac*: Proposed a Message Authentication
Code (MAC) token type as an alternative to Bearer tokens for
stronger request signing, but it was not widely adopted due to
complexity.
* *draft-ietf-oauth-pop-architecture* / *draft-ietf-oauth-pop-key-
distribution*: Laid the early architectural foundation for "Proof-
of-Possession" (PoP) tokens, whose core ideas evolved into the
more mature mTLS (RFC8705) and DPoP (RFC9449) specifications.
Chen & Su Expires 7 November 2026 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Roadmap May 2026
* *draft-ietf-oauth-token-binding*: An early attempt at sender-
constraint that aimed to bind OAuth tokens to the underlying TLS
channel, but the underlying Token Binding protocol it depended on
was not finalized by the IETF.
* *draft-ietf-oauth-closing-redirectors*: Specifically discussed and
proposed solutions for mitigating the Open Redirector
vulnerability, with its ideas being integrated into mainstream
security best practices.
* *draft-ietf-oauth-use-cases*: An early document used to collect
and articulate the use cases that shaped the design of OAuth 2.0.
* *draft-ietf-oauth-distributed* / *draft-ietf-oauth-reciprocal*:
Explored authorization models for distributed and peer-to-peer
scenarios, with some concepts finding more mature expression in
specifications like Token Exchange (RFC8693).
13. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
14. Security Considerations
This document is a roadmap that provides a guide to the OAuth 2.0
family of specifications; it does not define a protocol itself. As
such, it does not introduce any new security considerations. The
security of an OAuth 2.0 implementation depends on the proper
application of the standards and best practices described in the
referenced documents.
Readers are strongly encouraged to consult the security
considerations sections of each individual RFC and draft. In
particular, the following documents provide comprehensive security
guidance and are considered essential reading for all implementers:
* *OAuth 2.0 Security Best Current Practice* [RFC9728]: The primary
and most up-to-date guide for securing OAuth 2.0 deployments.
* *OAuth 2.0 for Native Apps* [RFC8252]: Essential security
practices for mobile and desktop applications.
* *JSON Web Token (JWT) Best Current Practices* [RFC8725]: Critical
guidance for anyone using JWTs as access tokens or in other
contexts.
Chen & Su Expires 7 November 2026 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Roadmap May 2026
Implementers should pay close attention to the evolution of security
drafts, such as draft-ietf-oauth-v2-1, which aim to simplify and
harden the core framework.
15. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Julius Cordes for his valuable review
and suggestions.
16. References
16.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC6749] Hardt, D., Ed., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework",
RFC 6749, DOI 10.17487/RFC6749, October 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6749>.
[RFC6750] Jones, M. and D. Hardt, "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization
Framework: Bearer Token Usage", RFC 6750,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6750, October 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6750>.
[RFC7009] Lodderstedt, T., Ed., Dronia, S., and M. Scurtescu, "OAuth
2.0 Token Revocation", RFC 7009, DOI 10.17487/RFC7009,
August 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7009>.
[RFC7519] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token
(JWT)", RFC 7519, DOI 10.17487/RFC7519, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7519>.
[RFC7521] Campbell, B., Mortimore, C., Jones, M., and Y. Goland,
"Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication
and Authorization Grants", RFC 7521, DOI 10.17487/RFC7521,
May 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7521>.
[RFC7523] Jones, M., Campbell, B., and C. Mortimore, "JSON Web Token
(JWT) Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and
Authorization Grants", RFC 7523, DOI 10.17487/RFC7523, May
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7523>.
Chen & Su Expires 7 November 2026 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Roadmap May 2026
[RFC7591] Richer, J., Ed., Jones, M., Bradley, J., Machulak, M., and
P. Hunt, "OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration Protocol",
RFC 7591, DOI 10.17487/RFC7591, July 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7591>.
[RFC7592] Richer, J., Ed., Jones, M., Bradley, J., and M. Machulak,
"OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration Management
Protocol", RFC 7592, DOI 10.17487/RFC7592, July 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7592>.
[RFC7636] Sakimura, N., Ed., Bradley, J., and N. Agarwal, "Proof Key
for Code Exchange by OAuth Public Clients", RFC 7636,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7636, September 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7636>.
[RFC7662] Richer, J., Ed., "OAuth 2.0 Token Introspection",
RFC 7662, DOI 10.17487/RFC7662, October 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7662>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.
[RFC8414] Jones, M., Sakimura, N., and J. Bradley, "OAuth 2.0
Authorization Server Metadata", RFC 8414,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8414, June 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8414>.
[RFC8628] Denniss, W., Bradley, J., Jones, M., and H. Tschofenig,
"OAuth 2.0 Device Authorization Grant", RFC 8628,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8628, August 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8628>.
[RFC8693] Jones, M., Nadalin, A., Campbell, B., Ed., Bradley, J.,
and C. Mortimore, "OAuth 2.0 Token Exchange", RFC 8693,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8693, January 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8693>.
[RFC8705] Campbell, B., Bradley, J., Sakimura, N., and T.
Lodderstedt, "OAuth 2.0 Mutual-TLS Client Authentication
and Certificate-Bound Access Tokens", RFC 8705,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8705, February 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8705>.
[RFC8707] Campbell, B., Bradley, J., and H. Tschofenig, "Resource
Indicators for OAuth 2.0", RFC 8707, DOI 10.17487/RFC8707,
February 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8707>.
Chen & Su Expires 7 November 2026 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Roadmap May 2026
[RFC9068] Bertocci, V., "JSON Web Token (JWT) Profile for OAuth 2.0
Access Tokens", RFC 9068, DOI 10.17487/RFC9068, October
2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9068>.
[RFC9101] Sakimura, N., Bradley, J., and M. Jones, "The OAuth 2.0
Authorization Framework: JWT-Secured Authorization Request
(JAR)", RFC 9101, DOI 10.17487/RFC9101, August 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9101>.
[RFC9126] Lodderstedt, T., Campbell, B., Sakimura, N., Tonge, D.,
and F. Skokan, "OAuth 2.0 Pushed Authorization Requests",
RFC 9126, DOI 10.17487/RFC9126, September 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9126>.
[RFC9207] Meyer zu Selhausen, K. and D. Fett, "OAuth 2.0
Authorization Server Issuer Identification", RFC 9207,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9207, March 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9207>.
[RFC9396] Lodderstedt, T., Richer, J., and B. Campbell, "OAuth 2.0
Rich Authorization Requests", RFC 9396,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9396, May 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9396>.
[RFC9449] Fett, D., Campbell, B., Bradley, J., Lodderstedt, T.,
Jones, M., and D. Waite, "OAuth 2.0 Demonstrating Proof of
Possession (DPoP)", RFC 9449, DOI 10.17487/RFC9449,
September 2023, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9449>.
[RFC9728] Jones, M.B., Hunt, P., and A. Parecki, "OAuth 2.0
Protected Resource Metadata", RFC 9728,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9728, April 2025,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9728>.
[RFC9901] Fett, D., Yasuda, K., and B. Campbell, "Selective
Disclosure for JSON Web Tokens", RFC 9901,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9901, November 2025,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9901>.
16.2. Informative References
[RFC6819] Lodderstedt, T., Ed., McGloin, M., and P. Hunt, "OAuth 2.0
Threat Model and Security Considerations", RFC 6819,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6819, January 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6819>.
Chen & Su Expires 7 November 2026 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft OAuth 2.0 Roadmap May 2026
[RFC8252] Denniss, W. and J. Bradley, "OAuth 2.0 for Native Apps",
BCP 212, RFC 8252, DOI 10.17487/RFC8252, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8252>.
[RFC8725] Sheffer, Y., Hardt, D., and M. Jones, "JSON Web Token Best
Current Practices", BCP 225, RFC 8725,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8725, February 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8725>.
[OIDC] OpenID Foundation, "OpenID Connect", n.d.,
<https://openid.net/connect/>.
Appendix A. References
A.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] [RFC6749] [RFC6750] [RFC7009] [RFC7519] [RFC7521] [RFC7523]
[RFC7591] [RFC7592] [RFC7636] [RFC7662] [RFC8174] [RFC8414] [RFC8628]
[RFC8693] [RFC8705] [RFC8707] [RFC9068] [RFC9101] [RFC9126] [RFC9207]
[RFC9396] [RFC9449] [RFC9901]
A.2. Informative References
[RFC6819] [RFC8252] [RFC8725] [RFC9728] [OIDC]
Authors' Addresses
Meiling Chen
China Mobile
BeiJing
China
Email: chenmeiling@chinamobile.com
Li Su
China Mobile
BeiJing
China
Email: suli@chinamobile.com
Chen & Su Expires 7 November 2026 [Page 15]