RFC 7521: Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This specification provides a framework for the use of assertions with OAuth 2.0 in the form of a new client authentication mechanism and a new authorization grant type. Mechanisms are specified for transporting assertions during interactions with a token endpoint; general processing rules are also specified. The intent of this specification is to provide a common framework for OAuth 2.0 to interwork with other identity systems using assertions and to provide alternative client authentication mechanisms. Note that this specification only defines abstract message flows and processing rules. In order to be implementable, companion specifications are necessary to provide the corresponding concrete instantiations.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC7521
- Published
- May 2015
- Authors
- B. Campbell; C. Mortimore; M. Jones; Y. Goland
- Status
- PROPOSED STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- sec
- Pages
- 20
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 7522Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) 2.0 Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization GrantsCurrent
May 2015
- RFC 7523JSON Web Token (JWT) Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization GrantsCurrent
May 2015
- RFC 9101The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework: JWT-Secured Authorization Request (JAR)Current
August 2021
- RFC 7519JSON Web Token (JWT)Updated
May 2015
- RFC 7165Use Cases and Requirements for JSON Object Signing and Encryption (JOSE)Current
April 2014
- RFC 8392CBOR Web Token (CWT)Current
May 2018
- RFC 8414OAuth 2.0 Authorization Server MetadataCurrent
June 2018
- RFC 8693OAuth 2.0 Token ExchangeCurrent
January 2020
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?