Internet-Draft | OAuth RT/Authorization Expiration | August 2025 |
Watson | Expires 20 February 2026 | [Page] |
This specification extends OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749] by adding new token endpoint response parameters to specify refresh token expiration and user authorization expiration.¶
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.¶
The latest revision of this draft can be found at https://njwatson32.github.io/rt-expiration/draft-watson-oauth-refresh-token-expiration.html. Status information for this document may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-watson-oauth-refresh-token-expiration/.¶
Discussion of this document takes place on the Web Authorization Protocol Working Group mailing list (mailto:oauth@ietf.org), which is archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/oauth/. Subscribe at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth/.¶
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at https://github.com/njwatson32/rt-expiration.¶
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 20 February 2026.¶
Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶
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.¶
RFC6749 defines the OAuth 2.0 protocol, part of which is the ability for a client to receive a refresh token that may be repeatedly exchanged for more access tokens. OAuth 2.0 does not contain any normative language around expiration or lack thereof for refresh tokens, mentioning only that they are "typically long-lasting".¶
In the years since the publication of OAuth 2.0, in response to changing security and privacy landscapes, many authorization servers have begun to issue shorter-lived refresh tokens for two main reasons:¶
The authorization server or user may decide that the access being granted is too sensitive to allow indefinite access (e.g. mail or health data).¶
The authorization server enforces a maximum duration that refresh tokens may be held without being exchanged on the token endpoint.¶
Clients may wish to implement special handling for expiring refresh tokens. For example, if the user has granted expiring access, the client may notify the user that they will need to reauthorize access before a certain date to avoid interruption of service.¶
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] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶
"Resource owner" and "user" may be used interchangeably to refer to the entity capable of granting access to a protected resource.¶
"Client", "application", and "relying party" may be used interchangeably to refer to the application making protected resource requests on behalf of the resource owner and with its authorization.¶
There are two mechanisms that can affect refresh token expiration.¶
Authorization servers may wish to define a maximum amount of time clients can hold a refresh token without exchanging it. Beyond the security benefit provided by expiring credentials, this also provides a convenient mechanism for authorization servers to change refresh token keys without having to accept old credentials forever.¶
The refresh token MUST NOT expire later than the user authorization expires. It MAY expire earlier if the authorization server also enforces a maximum duration between refresh token exchanges.¶
If the user renews their authorization, the authorization server SHOULD update the expiration time of existing refresh tokens if their lifetime was truncated due to user authorization expiration. The authorization server MUST NOT accept expired refresh tokens for any purpose, even if it has no way to update the expiration time of existing refresh tokens.¶
Access tokens MUST NOT expire later than the user authorization expires. If the user renews their authorization, the authorization server MAY update the expiration time of existing access tokens if possible. Resource servers MUST NOT accept expired access tokens for any purpose, even if the authorization server has no way to update the expiration time of existing access tokens.¶
This specification introduces two new response parameters.¶
refresh_token_inactivity_timeout The lifetime in seconds of the refresh token. For example, the value 604800 denotes that the refresh token will expire in one week from the time the response was generated. This value SHALL NOT exceed the value in authorization_expires_in. authorization_expires_in The lifetime in seconds of the user's authorization for the scopes contained in the issued or presented refresh token. For example, the value 2629800 denotes that the authorization will expire in one month from the time the response was generated. This value MAY exceed that of refresh_token_inactivity_timeout.¶
If finite, the authorization server MUST return these values whenever the token
endpoint response contains the refresh_token
field. The authorization server
MAY return these values even if the response contains no refresh_token
field
in the response, which can be useful in the following example cases:¶
For refresh_token_inactivity_timeout
, the authorization server could have
updated the existing refresh token lifetime in place.¶
For authorization_expires_in
, the user's authorization lifetime could have
been modified out of band.¶
In all cases, it can be convenient for the client to receive these values in each response.¶
Omitted values indicate that there is no fixed upper bound on the lifetime of the credential or authorization. If the authorization server has not declared its support for refresh token lifetime in the Authorization Server Metadata, omitted response fields could indicate either indefinite validity or simply lack of support for this specification. However, infinite expiration and lack of information about expiration should be handled by the client in the same way. That is to say, the client must always handle refresh token invalidation not caused by expiration, such as by explicit user revocation.¶
Rather than omitting a response value, an authorization server may choose to return a large arbitrary value, e.g. 315569520 for 10 years. This avoids any ambiguity around support for infinite values while achieving a similar practical effect. Clients MUST treat all large values as literals and MUST NOT make any assumptions about which may be considered infinite.¶
The existing invalid_grant
error code already explicitly covers token
expiration and should be sufficient. Upon receiving this error code the client
SHOULD start a new authorization grant flow.¶
Suppose an authorization server enforces that refresh tokens must be exchanged at least once every 7 days, and a user has granted authorization to an application for access for 30 days. The initial exchange will result in the following response values:¶
refresh_token_inactivity_timeout: 604800 // 7 days authorization_expires_in: 2592000 // 30 days¶
An exchange 7 days after initial authorization will result in the following response values:¶
refresh_token_inactivity_timeout: 604800 // 7 days authorization_expires_in: 1987200 // 23 days¶
An exchange 28 days after initial authorization will result in the following response values:¶
refresh_token_inactivity_timeout: 172800 // 2 days authorization_expires_in: 172800 // 2 days¶
While clients must be able to gracefully handle tokens' expiring at any time, the user experience may suffer if there's an unintended interruption of service. This degradation of experience would most likely be felt by users of clients running in the background, such as task or travel management apps that rely on access to a user's calendar or inbox.¶
If an application recognizes that its access is nearing expiration, it can
proactively prompt the user for reauthorization next time they're "in the loop"
(e.g. using a parameter like prompt=consent
from [OpenID]), or even
communicate to the user out of band that their granted access is expiring.¶
While it is possible to allow refresh token expiration to exceed that of user authorization expiration if the authorization server checks both timestamps when validating a refresh token, this is a potentially dangerous source of bugs in systems with complicated user authorization models. By requiring refresh tokens to expire no later than user authorization expires, there is less risk of bugs that accidentally provide data access to the client beyond the term of the user's authorization.¶
Authorization servers implementing token rotation on every refresh [OAuth 2.1] Sec 4.3.1 may wish to enforce a maximum duration that a refresh token may be held without rotation, and this specification allows that duration to be communicated as part of the API rather than relying on documentation.¶
Allowing users to time-limit their authorization is a privacy improvement. While this was already doable in regular OAuth implementations, the potential interruption of service for the user may have discouraged implementation of the feature. This specification provides a standardized way to mitigate that concern and should lead to greater adoption of time-limited authorization.¶
This specification registers the following OAuth parameter definitions in the IANA OAuth Parameters registry.¶
TODO acknowledge.¶