It would be good to understand exactly what approval you are expecting to happen during this flow? The draft says “an explicit approval step performed by an approving party, typically the user running the client”. But clients are not tied to one particular user, so this seems dangerous if any user can approve a client for everyone.
Dynamic client registration always has the problem of what exactly the AS or an approver is supposed to base their decision on, when all they have is client-asserted values. Software statements improve this somewhat, where supported. The only approval steps I can think of that make sense are things like reviewing policy/privacy documents etc for compliance. But that’s not something that can be completed in a few minutes while the client sits around polling for a response. > On 20 Jul 2026, at 05:41, Dellaert, Philippe > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > As you might have noticed, I’ve submitted a new Internet-Draft: > Approval-Based Dynamic Client Registration: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dellaert-oauth-approval-based-dcr/ > > Dynamic Client Registration provides a way for new clients to register > themselves using an open registration mechanism, or registering using an > Initial Access Token for extra security. For certain clients like native > applications, CLI tools, or applications at scale, providing an IAT is not > always an option and open registration is something many operators prefer to > avoid. > > I propose an approval-based registration using the existing DCR registration > endpoint where the client opts-in for this new mode. If the authorization > server’s policy supports and requires an approval before the client is > registered, it returns a registration code, a verification code and a > verification URI. The client polls the registration endpoint while an > approver approves or denies the registration request out of band using the > verification code and the verification URI. Once approved, on the next poll, > the client receives a normal DCR response. > > A lot of this is inspired by the Device Authorization Grant (RFC 8628) and > the Deferred Token Response draft. I do diverge from these proposals by using > specific HTTP response codes instead of using error responses. Registration > success remains 201, a pending registration waiting for approval returns 202, > both for initial request and polling, and 429 with a Retry-After response > header is used to indicate to the client to slow down the requests. 400 is > still used for errors. > > I’d welcome feedback from the group, and especially from the authors of > Dynamic Client Registration as this is an addition to DCR, and from the > authors of Device Authorization Grant and Deferred Token Response as they are > a source of inspiration. I have cc’d the DCR and DTR authors out of courtesy, > not out of any expectation. > > Regards, > Philippe > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
