Internet-Draft DTR June 2026
Jacobsen, et al. Expires 25 December 2026 [Page]
Workgroup:
Web Authorization Protocol
Internet-Draft:
draft-gerber-oauth-deferred-token-response-00
Published:
Intended Status:
Standards Track
Expires:
Authors:
F.K. Jacobsen
Idura
G. de Oliveira Niero
Itaú
M. Gerber
Twilio

Deferred Token Response

Abstract

This document defines the Deferred Token Response (DTR) extension for OAuth 2.1. In existing OAuth grants, the token endpoint either issues an access token or returns an error. DTR establishes a generic asynchronous token request mechanism that any OAuth grant may plug into. In DTR-aware flows, the authorization server returns a deferral_code and a polling interval, indicating that the final token response will be available at a later time. The client retrieves the eventual response by polling the token endpoint, or by receiving a callback from the authorization server when one is configured.

About This Document

This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

The latest revision of this draft can be found at https://maxwellgerber.github.io/deferred-token-response/draft-gerber-oauth-deferred-token-response.html. Status information for this document may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gerber-oauth-deferred-token-response/.

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/maxwellgerber/deferred-token-response.

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 25 December 2026.

▲

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

Existing OAuth grants assume the authorization server can decide synchronously whether to issue an access token. The Authorization Code Grant (Section 4.1 of [OAUTH-2.1]), Client Credentials Grant (Section 4.2 of [OAUTH-2.1]), and assertion-based grants such as [ID-JAG] all respond to a token request with either a token response or an error response.

However, some authorization decisions cannot complete synchronously:

In each case, the authorization server today must return an error response, leaving the client without a mechanism to discover when (or whether) the request will eventually be approved.

This specification defines a Deferred Token Response, in which the authorization server returns a deferral_code and a polling interval in place of an access token. The deferral_code represents the pending token request and entitles the client to a final token response when the request resolves. The client either polls the token endpoint with the deferral_code, or receives a callback from the authorization server when a callback URI is registered.

Unlike the Device Authorization Grant [RFC8628], deferral under DTR is initiated by the authorization server, not by the client or the end-user. This allows an authorization server to apply DTR dynamically, based on policy or risk analysis, to a request that began under another grant. The Device Authorization Grant additionally assumes that the same end-user who initiated the flow is the party who will approve it; DTR makes no such assumption, and supports use cases in which a different user, a different system, or no human at all completes the authorization decision.

In many of the motivating use cases, the authorization server delegates the actual verification or decision to an external service — an identity verification vendor, a fraud analysis platform, or a governance system. The protocol between the authorization server and any such external provider is out of scope for this specification; only the interface between the client and the authorization server is defined here.

2. 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 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

This specification defines the following terms:

deferral code

A unique, opaque, server-generated identifier that represents a single pending token request. The deferral code is carried in the deferral_code member of the deferred response (Section 5.4) and is identified, when used as a token_type_hint at the revocation endpoint, by the URI urn:ietf:params:oauth:token-type:deferral-code. The deferral code is bound to the issuing client and to a sender-constraining key per Section 10.1, and entitles the bound party to retrieve the eventual token response.

polling interval

The minimum number of seconds, conveyed in the interval parameter of the deferred response, that the client MUST wait between two consecutive polling requests for the same deferral code.

deferred client notification endpoint

An HTTPS URI registered by the client at which it accepts callback notifications from the authorization server when a deferred request resolves.

originating grant

The OAuth grant — for example, the Authorization Code Grant (Section 4.1 of [OAUTH-2.1]), the Client Credentials Grant (Section 4.2 of [OAUTH-2.1]), or Token Exchange ([RFC8693]) — on whose token request the deferred response was returned, and whose successful token response shape is reused when the deferred request eventually resolves.

preceding endpoint

Some grant types utilize multiple authorization server endpoints. For an originating grant whose flow begins at an endpoint other than the token endpoint, the preceding endpoint is the endpoint utilized just before the token endpoint. Examples include the authorization endpoint of the Authorization Code Grant ([OAUTH-2.1]), the device authorization endpoint of [RFC8628], and the authorization challenge endpoint of [FIPA]. A grant that operates entirely at the token endpoint (for example, the Client Credentials Grant) has no preceding endpoint.

3. Overview

The Deferred Token Response flow allows an authorization server to defer the issuance of an access token for an arbitrarily long time after the request that would normally produce one.

The flow proceeds entirely through the originating grant's existing endpoints. A grant becomes deferred when:

  1. The client signals willingness to accept a deferred response by including deferred among the values of the completion_mode parameter on the originating grant's token endpoint request.

  2. The authorization server elects, on that token endpoint request, to return a deferred response in place of the normal token response. The deferred response carries a deferral_code instead of an access token.

  3. The client polls the token endpoint with the deferral_code until the authorization server returns the final token response, or optionally receives a callback notification when the request resolves.

For an originating grant with a preceding endpoint — for example, the authorization endpoint of the Authorization Code Grant of [OAUTH-2.1], the device authorization endpoint of [RFC8628], or the authorization challenge endpoint of [FIPA] — the client MAY also send completion_mode=deferred on the preceding request as an advance hint. The hint allows the authorization server to commit to deferral-aware behavior before the token request — for example, by collecting different consent, by showing a different verification UX, or by selecting a different review path. An authorization server that acts on the hint depends on the client's intent at the token endpoint matching it; see Section 4.2. The authorization server returns its grant's normal response to the preceding request (for example, an authorization code) regardless of whether the request will be deferred.

+--------+                                  +-----+              +----------+
|        |                                  |     |              |          |
|        |--(1) Auth Request--------------->|     |              |          |
|        |   (completion_mode=deferred)     |     |              |          |
|        |                                  |     |<-(2) Obtain->| End-User |
|        |                                  |     |    input     |          |
|        |<-(3) Auth Response (code)--------|     |              |          |
|        |                                  |     |              +----------+
|        |--(4) Token Request-------------->|     |
|        | (code, completion_mode=deferred) |     |
|        |<-(5) Deferred Response-----------|     |
|        |   (deferral_code)                |     |
|        |                                  |     |---------+
| Client |                                  | AS  |         |
|        |--(6) Token Request-------------->|     |         |
|        |   (deferral_code)                |     | (7) Complete request
|        |<-Token Response------------------|     |         |
|        |                                  |     |<--------+
|        |               ...                |     |
|        |                                  |     |
|        |<-(8) Optional Callback-----------|     |
|        |                                  |     |
|        |--(6) Token Request-------------->|     |
|        |   (deferral_code)                |     |
|        |<-Token Response------------------|     |
|        |                                  |     |
+--------+                                  +-----+

For a token-endpoint-only grant the flow is the same with steps (1) through (3) collapsed into the initial token request.

Once the authorization server has issued a deferral_code, the remaining flow — polling, callback, eventual token response, cancellation — is identical regardless of the originating grant.

4. Client Opt-In Signaling

The Deferred Token Response is an opt-in mechanism from the client's perspective. An authorization server MUST NOT issue a deferred response to a client that has not signaled willingness to accept one. This specification defines the completion_mode request parameter for that purpose.

4.1. The completion_mode Parameter

completion_mode

OPTIONAL. A space-separated list of completion-mode values registered in the "OAuth Completion Mode Values" registry (Section 12). Order is not significant, and values MUST NOT be repeated. This specification defines a single value, deferred: when it is present in the list, the client signals that it is willing to accept a deferred response from the authorization server in place of an immediate token response or error. If the parameter is absent, or is present but does not include deferred, the client requires synchronous handling. The authorization server MUST ignore any value it does not recognize.

The client signals opt-in to DTR by including deferred among the completion_mode values on the originating grant's token endpoint request.

For an originating grant with a preceding endpoint — the authorization endpoint, the device authorization endpoint of [RFC8628], the authorization challenge endpoint, or another endpoint introduced by a future extension — the client MAY additionally send completion_mode=deferred on that preceding request as an advance hint to the authorization server. The semantics of the hint are defined in Section 4.2.

Authorization servers that publish Authorization Server Metadata [RFC8414] MUST include the following property to signal support for deferred token responses as described in this specification:

deferred_token_response_supported

OPTIONAL. Boolean value specifying whether the the authorization server supports the deferred token response defined in this specification.

A client MAY discover authorization server support for this specification through the deferred_token_response_supported authorization server metadata parameter (Section 12). A client MAY send completion_mode=deferred to an authorization server that does not advertise support; such an authorization server SHOULD silently ignore the parameter and complete the request synchronously per its originating grant's rules.

4.2. Pre-Token Hints

For an originating grant with a preceding endpoint, the client MAY send completion_mode=deferred on that preceding request to inform the authorization server in advance that the grant may resolve to a deferred response at the token endpoint. The hint is optional: a client that omits it on the preceding request can still opt in at the token endpoint, and the authorization server MUST NOT reject a token request carrying completion_mode=deferred solely because no hint was received earlier.

Where the authorization request is not sent directly to the authorization endpoint, completion_mode is conveyed wherever the request's other authorization parameters are conveyed — for example, in the request body of a Pushed Authorization Request (PAR) or as a member of a JWT-secured authorization request object (JAR).

An authorization server MAY act on the hint by selecting a deferral-aware path for the originating grant — for example, by collecting different consent from the resource owner, by presenting a different verification UX, by routing the request to a review queue, or by altering its risk-analysis decision. An authorization server that does not use the hint MUST treat the preceding request as it would without DTR; the hint never alters the response shape of the preceding endpoint.

A client that has sent completion_mode=deferred on the preceding request MUST also include deferred among the completion_mode values on the resulting token request. If the client instead omits deferred (or omits the parameter) at the token endpoint, the authorization server MUST reject the request with the error invalid_request.

A client that did not send a hint MAY still send completion_mode=deferred at the token endpoint, and the authorization server MAY return a deferred response.

Polling requests (Section 5.5) are not part of the originating grant; they continue an already-deferred flow rather than initiating one and MUST NOT carry the completion_mode parameter.

4.3. Authorization Server Discretion

Sending completion_mode=deferred does not entitle the client to a deferred response. The authorization server retains discretion over whether to defer any individual request — based on policy, risk analysis, or operational state — and MAY complete the request synchronously even when the client has opted in.

Conversely, an authorization server MUST NOT defer a response to a request whose completion_mode does not include deferred. In that case the authorization server completes the request synchronously per the originating grant's rules or returns an error per those rules.

Authorization servers conforming to this specification MUST accept the completion_mode parameter on requests for any grant within this specification's scope; they MUST NOT reject a completion_mode value they do not recognize as an error. The opt-in semantic is preserved by the authorization server's choice of whether to defer, not by rejection of the parameter itself.

4.4. Examples

Token endpoint request opting in to DTR (Authorization Code Grant):

POST /token HTTP/1.1
Host: server.example.com
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Authorization: Basic czZCaGRSa3F0MzpnWDFmQmF0M2JW

grant_type=authorization_code
&code=SplxlOBeZQQYbYS6WxSbIA
&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fclient.example.org%2Fcb
&completion_mode=deferred

Token endpoint request opting in to DTR (Client Credentials Grant):

POST /token HTTP/1.1
Host: server.example.com
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Authorization: Basic czZCaGRSa3F0MzpnWDFmQmF0M2JW

grant_type=client_credentials
&scope=profile
&completion_mode=deferred

The following requests illustrate the optional pre-token hint (Section 4.2) on grants with a preceding endpoint. A client that sends a hint is expected to follow up with completion_mode=deferred on the corresponding token request shown above.

Authorization endpoint hint (Authorization Code Grant of [OAUTH-2.1]):

GET /authorize?response_type=code
  &client_id=s6BhdRkqt3
  &redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fclient.example.org%2Fcb
  &scope=profile
  &completion_mode=deferred
  &state=af0ifjsldkj HTTP/1.1
Host: server.example.com

Device authorization endpoint hint (Device Authorization Grant of [RFC8628]):

POST /device_authorization HTTP/1.1
Host: server.example.com
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Authorization: Basic czZCaGRSa3F0MzpnWDFmQmF0M2JW

scope=profile
&completion_mode=deferred

Authorization challenge endpoint hint ([FIPA]):

POST /authorize-challenge HTTP/1.1
Host: server.example.com
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Authorization: Basic czZCaGRSa3F0MzpnWDFmQmF0M2JW

login_hint=%2B1-310-123-4567
&scope=profile
&completion_mode=deferred

5. The Deferred Authorization Grant

This section defines the protocol elements that comprise the deferred authorization grant: how the originating grant's endpoint behaves under DTR, the token endpoint request that may yield a deferred response, the polling request that retrieves the eventual token response, and the error responses returned during these exchanges.

This specification defines one new grant_type URN, urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:deferred, used only on polling requests (Section 5.5) to retrieve a deferred token response. The originating grant's existing grant_type (for example, authorization_code or client_credentials) is unchanged on the token endpoint request that may yield a deferred response.

5.1. Pre-Token Request

For grants that have a preceding endpoint, the client MAY send completion_mode=deferred on the originating grant's request to that endpoint as the optional pre-token hint defined in Section 4.2. The preceding endpoint behaves identically with or without completion_mode: the authorization server returns the originating grant's normal response and does not include any DTR-specific parameter.

The following is a non-normative example of an authorization-endpoint hint under DTR (line wraps within values are for display only):

GET /authorize?response_type=code
  &client_id=s6BhdRkqt3
  &redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fclient.example.org%2Fcb
  &scope=profile
  &completion_mode=deferred
  &state=af0ifjsldkj HTTP/1.1
Host: server.example.com

5.1.1. Pre-Token Request Validation

The authorization server MUST validate the request as it would without DTR, with the following addition:

  • Apply the completion_mode rules of Section 4.1: process recognized values, ignore unrecognized ones, and treat the request as requiring synchronous handling if the parameter is absent or does not include deferred.

If the authorization server encounters any error, it MUST return the originating grant's normal error response.

5.2. Pre-Token Response

The authorization server returns the originating grant's normal response to a preceding-endpoint request, regardless of whether the request carried a completion_mode=deferred hint. For the Authorization Code Grant of [OAUTH-2.1], this is the authorization code response of Section 4.1.2 of [OAUTH-2.1].

The client processes the response per the originating grant's rules.

5.3. Token Endpoint — Initial Request

The initial token request is the originating grant's token request, extended with the completion_mode parameter from Section 4.

The client MAY also include the following parameter:

client_notification_token

OPTIONAL. An opaque bearer credential generated by the client. If present, the authorization server MUST bind it to the resulting deferral code and MUST present it as a Bearer token on any callback notification for that deferral code (see Section 6.1). The token MUST contain sufficient entropy to make brute-force guessing infeasible (a minimum of 128 bits, with 160 bits RECOMMENDED). A client that registers a deferred_client_notification_endpoint SHOULD include a client_notification_token; without one, the client cannot authenticate inbound callbacks (see Section 10.4).

The response to this request is one of:

  • The originating grant's normal token response per Section 5.1 of [OAUTH-2.1], if the authorization server completes the request synchronously.

  • The deferred response defined in Section 5.4, if the authorization server elects to defer the request. The deferred response is an error response that carries a deferral_code the client uses for polling.

The following is a non-normative example of an initial token request under DTR for the Authorization Code Grant:

POST /token HTTP/1.1
Host: server.example.com
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Authorization: Basic czZCaGRSa3F0MzpnWDFmQmF0M2JW

grant_type=authorization_code
&code=SplxlOBeZQQYbYS6WxSbIA
&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fclient.example.org%2Fcb
&completion_mode=deferred
&client_notification_token=f4oirNBUlM

5.3.1. Initial Request Validation

The authorization server MUST validate the request as it would without DTR, with the following additions:

  • Apply the completion_mode rules of Section 4.1: process recognized values and ignore unrecognized ones; if the parameter is absent or does not include deferred, treat the request as requiring synchronous handling.

  • If the originating grant has a preceding endpoint and the client sent completion_mode=deferred on that earlier request, apply the hint-consistency rule of Section 4.2: if the token request does not also include deferred in completion_mode, the authorization server MUST reject the request with the error invalid_request.

  • If client_notification_token is present, verify that the value conforms to the entropy requirements above. If not, the authorization server MAY reject the request with invalid_request.

If the authorization server encounters any error, it MUST return an error response per Section 5.6 or per the originating grant's rules, as appropriate.

5.4. Token Endpoint — Deferred Response

When the authorization server elects to defer a token request whose completion_mode includes deferred, it returns an error response on the token endpoint per Section 5.2 of [OAUTH-2.1] with the HTTP status code 400 (Bad Request) and the error code authorization_pending. The deferred response is not a token response: it issues no access token and confers no access to any protected resource. Instead it carries a deferral_code that the client uses to retrieve the eventual token response once the deferred request resolves.

A deferral code is a sender-constrained, AS-issued credential that represents a single pending authorization request. It is not an OAuth access token, refresh token, or authorization code, and it confers no access to any protected resource. Its use is strictly limited to interacting with the same authorization server regarding the pending authorization request it represents. See Section 5.5.

In addition to the error parameter, the deferred response includes the following parameters:

deferral_code

REQUIRED. The deferral code issued by the authorization server. The deferral code MUST contain at least 128 bits of entropy (160 bits RECOMMENDED) drawn from a cryptographically secure random source per Section 10.10 of [RFC6749]. The deferral code MUST be opaque to the client and MUST NOT carry meaning visible to the client. The client uses this value when polling the token endpoint per Section 5.5 and, if a deferred_client_notification_endpoint is registered, the authorization server includes the same value when it notifies the client.

expires_in

REQUIRED. The lifetime in seconds of the deferral code. After this interval, the authorization server MUST reject polling requests that present this deferral code with the error expired_token. This value governs the lifetime of the deferral code, not the lifetime of any eventual access token; clients MUST NOT use this value to schedule access-token refresh.

interval

REQUIRED. The minimum number of seconds the client MUST wait between polling requests, following the semantics of the interval field defined in Section 3.2 of [RFC8628]. The interval is carried only in the deferred response; subsequent polling responses with authorization_pending do not repeat it, and the client MUST retain the value from the deferred response for the lifetime of the deferral code.

error_description

OPTIONAL. Human-readable text as defined in Section 5.2 of [OAUTH-2.1], subject to the data-minimization rules of Section 8.3.

Example:

HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
Content-Type: application/json
Cache-Control: no-store

{
  "error": "authorization_pending",
  "deferral_code": "8d67dc78-7faa-4d41-aabd-67707b374255",
  "expires_in": 10800,
  "interval": 60
}

The authorization server MUST sender-constrain the deferral code following the rules of [RFC9449], Section 5 for refresh tokens: when the initial token request that produced the deferred response was bound to a DPoP key (or to a TLS client certificate per [RFC8705]), the deferral code is bound to the same key. Polling requests presenting this deferral code MUST be authenticated with the same key (see Section 5.5).

Future profiles of this specification MAY add additional response parameters alongside the parameters defined here. Such parameters are out of scope for this document.

5.5. Token Endpoint — Polling

Once the client has a deferral_code from the deferred response of Section 5.4, the client polls the token endpoint until the request resolves.

The polling request is a token endpoint request that does not derive from the originating grant; it carries only the deferral_code and this specification's polling grant type.

The client makes an HTTP POST request to the token endpoint with the parameters using the application/x-www-form-urlencoded format:

grant_type

REQUIRED. Value MUST be urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:deferred.

deferral_code

REQUIRED. The deferral_code issued in the deferred response.

The client authenticates to the token endpoint as required by its registered authentication method per Section 2.4 of [OAUTH-2.1].

The client MUST NOT send polling requests faster than the rate established by the interval parameter of the deferred response. The client MUST increase the interval in response to a slow_down error (Section 5.6) by at least 5 seconds.

The following is a non-normative example:

POST /token HTTP/1.1
Host: server.example.com
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Authorization: Basic czZCaGRSa3F0MzpnWDFmQmF0M2JW

grant_type=urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:deferred
&deferral_code=8d67dc78-7faa-4d41-aabd-67707b374255

5.5.1. Polling Request Validation

The authorization server MUST validate the request:

  1. Authenticate the client per Section 2.4 of [OAUTH-2.1].

  2. Verify that the deferral_code is recognized and was issued to the authenticated client. If not, return invalid_grant.

  3. If the request is still pending, verify that expires_in has not elapsed. If it has, return expired_token.

  4. Evaluate the resolution state of the deferred request:

    • If the request has resolved successfully, return the token response defined in Section 5.5.2.

    • If the request has resolved with an error or has been cancelled per Section 7, return access_denied.

  5. Verify that no token response has previously been issued for this deferral_code. If it has, return invalid_grant.

If the authorization server encounters any error, it MUST return an error response per Section 5.6.

5.5.2. Successful Polling Response

When the deferred request has resolved successfully, the authorization server returns the originating grant's successful token response per Section 5.1 of [OAUTH-2.1]. The response includes an access_token, a token_type, and any other fields the originating grant defines (such as refresh_token or scope).

When the originating grant defines an issued_token_type in its successful token response (as Token Exchange does, per Section 2.2.1 of [RFC8693]), the successful polling response carries that originating-grant issued_token_type value. The successful polling response is never a deferred response and MUST NOT carry the urn:ietf:params:oauth:token-type:deferral-code type.

The expires_in field of this response carries the access-token lifetime per Section 5.1 of [OAUTH-2.1]; it is not the deferral-code lifetime conveyed by expires_in in the earlier deferred response.

A deferral_code that has been redeemed for a successful response is no longer valid; subsequent polling requests with the same deferral_code MUST be rejected with invalid_grant.

The following is a non-normative example:

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/json
Cache-Control: no-store

{
  "access_token": "SlAV32hkKG",
  "token_type": "Bearer",
  "expires_in": 3600,
  "refresh_token": "8xLOxBtZp8"
}

5.6. Token Endpoint — Error Responses

If a token-endpoint request defined by this specification — the initial request of Section 5.3 or the polling request of Section 5.5 — is invalid, unauthorized, or pending, the authorization server returns an error response per Section 5.2 of [OAUTH-2.1].

The authorization server MUST include the Cache-Control: no-store header field from Section 5.2.2.3 of [RFC7234] in every error response defined in this section, including the deferred response of Section 5.4 and any authorization_pending or slow_down response. This prevents an intermediary or the client from caching a transient authorization_pending response and replaying it, which could otherwise cause the client to poll indefinitely.

In addition to the error codes defined in Section 5.2 of [OAUTH-2.1], this specification uses the following error codes, with semantics aligned with the corresponding codes in Section 3.5 of [RFC8628]:

authorization_pending

The request has not yet resolved. On the initial token request, this is the deferred response of Section 5.4, which establishes the deferral_code and carries expires_in and interval. On a subsequent polling request, it indicates the deferred request is still pending; such responses reference the established deferral_code and do not repeat it. In either case the client SHOULD continue polling at the rate established by interval.

slow_down

The client is polling faster than interval allows. The client MUST increase its polling interval as described in Section 5.5.

expired_token

The deferral_code has expired. The client MUST stop polling with this deferral_code and MAY initiate a new flow.

access_denied

The deferred request was denied — for example, because the authorization could not be granted, or because the request was cancelled per Section 7.

The following additional rules apply:

  • A deferral_code that is not recognized, was issued to a different client, or has already been redeemed MUST result in an invalid_grant error per Section 3.2.4 of [OAUTH-2.1]. When the server has confirmed that the deferral code was issued to the authenticated client, the error_description SHOULD distinguish between "already redeemed" and "unknown identifier" for diagnostic purposes. When the deferral code is unrecognized or was issued to a different client, the server MUST treat it as unknown and MUST NOT provide detail that would allow distinguishing these cases. Clients MUST treat all invalid_grant responses as terminal and MUST NOT retry with the same deferral_code.

  • A token request that omits deferred from completion_mode after a completion_mode=deferred hint was sent on the originating grant's preceding-endpoint request MUST result in an invalid_request error per Section 4.2.

  • If a client polls faster than interval repeatedly, the authorization server MAY escalate from slow_down to invalid_request. A client receiving invalid_request MUST NOT make further requests with the same deferral_code.

The data-minimization rules of Section 8.3 apply to the error_description field of any error response defined in this section, including authorization_pending responses that carry progress information.

The following is a non-normative example:

HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
Content-Type: application/json
Cache-Control: no-store

{
  "error": "authorization_pending",
  "error_description":
    "The deferred request is still being processed."
}

6. Callback Notification

A client that does not wish to poll for the result of a deferred request MAY register a deferred_client_notification_endpoint (Section 6.2) at which it accepts callback notifications from the authorization server. When the deferred request resolves — successfully, with an error, or by cancellation — the authorization server sends a callback notification to that endpoint.

A callback notification does not itself convey the token response or any credential. It indicates that polling the token endpoint with the deferral_code will now yield a final response.

An authorization server MUST NOT initiate a callback notification before the HTTP response carrying the deferred response that introduced the deferral_code has been written to the network. Authorization servers SHOULD additionally delay callbacks for a small implementation-defined period after that point so that the client can record the deferral_code before receiving notice of its resolution. The authorization server MUST NOT send a callback notification for a deferral_code that has already expired; the client is informed of expiration via the expires_in value in the deferred response.

6.1. The Callback Request

The callback is an HTTP POST to the registered deferred_client_notification_endpoint with the following parameter encoded in application/json:

deferral_code

REQUIRED. The deferral_code of the deferred request that has resolved.

If the client supplied a client_notification_token on the initial token request that produced this deferral code, the authorization server MUST authenticate the callback request by including the client_notification_token as a Bearer credential in the Authorization header per Section 2.1 of [RFC6750]. The client MUST validate that the bearer credential equals the client_notification_token it supplied; on mismatch, the client MUST respond with HTTP 401 Unauthorized.

If the client did not supply a client_notification_token, the authorization server MUST omit the Authorization header. In that case the client MUST protect the callback endpoint by some other means — for example, mutual TLS or network-position assumptions — and SHOULD treat the callback as advisory until it has confirmed resolution by polling the token endpoint with the deferral code.

The following is a non-normative example with client_notification_token:

POST /cb HTTP/1.1
Host: client.example.com
Authorization: Bearer f4oirNBUlM
Content-Type: application/json

{
  "deferral_code": "8d67dc78-7faa-4d41-aabd-67707b374255"
}

For valid requests, the client MUST respond with HTTP 204 No Content. The client MUST NOT respond with an HTTP 3xx status code; the authorization server MUST NOT follow redirects.

Handling of HTTP error codes in the 4xx and 5xx ranges by the authorization server is out of scope for this specification.

Clients receiving a callback notification MUST ignore unrecognized parameters in the callback body.

6.2. Client Registration Metadata

The following Client Metadata parameter is defined by this specification to be used during Client Registration as defined in [RFC7591]:

deferred_client_notification_endpoint

OPTIONAL. URL to which the authorization server sends a notification when a deferred authorization request resolves. If supplied, it MUST be an HTTPS URL. A client that does not register this endpoint retrieves the final token response by polling the token endpoint.

7. Cancellation

A client MAY cancel a pending deferred request to release authorization server resources or because the underlying user intent no longer applies. Cancellation is performed by revoking the deferral code at the authorization server's revocation endpoint per [RFC7009].

7.1. Revocation Request

The client makes an HTTP POST request to the revocation endpoint per Section 2.1 of [RFC7009], with the following parameters using the application/x-www-form-urlencoded format:

token

REQUIRED. The deferral code to cancel, exactly as received in the deferral_code field of the deferred response.

token_type_hint

RECOMMENDED. Value urn:ietf:params:oauth:token-type:deferral-code.

The client authenticates to the revocation endpoint as required by its registered authentication method per Section 2.4 of [OAUTH-2.1].

The following is a non-normative example:

POST /revoke HTTP/1.1
Host: server.example.com
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Authorization: Basic czZCaGRSa3F0MzpnWDFmQmF0M2JW

token=8d67dc78-7faa-4d41-aabd-67707b374255
&token_type_hint=urn%3Aietf%3Aparams%3Aoauth%3Atoken-type%3Adeferral-code

7.2. Revocation Semantics for Deferral Codes

Authorization servers MUST extend the revocation endpoint to accept deferral codes, with the following semantics:

  1. If the deferral code is recognized and was issued to the authenticated client, the authorization server MUST atomically transition the pending request to a cancelled state, MUST suppress any pending callback notification for the deferral code where delivery has not yet been initiated, and MUST cause subsequent polling requests against the deferral code to return access_denied per Section 5.6.

  2. If the deferral code is unrecognized, was issued to a different authenticated client, or has already been redeemed, cancelled, or expired — the authorization server MUST return HTTP 200 OK without modifying state. Invalid tokens do not cause an error response, per Section 2.2 of [RFC7009].

  3. If the deferred request has already resolved successfully and the resulting access token has been delivered to the client, the authorization server MUST NOT revoke that access token as a side effect of revoking the deferral code. The two are independent credentials with independent lifetimes; clients that need to revoke an issued access token MUST do so explicitly per [RFC7009].

  4. If the deferred request has resolved successfully but the access token has not yet been delivered to the client (for example, a resolution committed between the last poll and the cancellation), the authorization server MUST treat the deferral code as redeemed-and-then-cancelled: it MUST NOT issue the access token on any subsequent polling request and MUST return access_denied instead.

The revocation response is governed by Section 2.2 of [RFC7009].

After a successful cancellation, the authorization server MAY retain the deferral code's identifier for the remainder of expires_in to ensure that subsequent polling requests reliably return access_denied rather than invalid_grant. Disposal of any data collected during the deferred request is out of scope for this specification.

To avoid leaking the validity of deferral code identifiers through response timing, authorization servers SHOULD process revocation requests in approximately constant time regardless of whether the supplied token value is recognized. This complements the indistinguishability of the response codes required by clauses 1 and 2 above.

7.3. Idempotency and Retry

Per Section 2.2 of [RFC7009], the revocation endpoint is idempotent. Clients MAY retry revocation requests on transport failures without risking adverse effects.

7.4. Discovery

To allow clients to determine whether the revocation endpoint accepts deferral codes, this specification registers the authorization server metadata parameter revocation_endpoint_token_type_values_supported in Section 12. An authorization server that supports this specification MUST list urn:ietf:params:oauth:token-type:deferral-code in this array.

Clients SHOULD check that urn:ietf:params:oauth:token-type:deferral-code is present in revocation_endpoint_token_type_values_supported before relying on cancellation. An authorization server that does not advertise support will return HTTP 200 OK for any revocation request per Section 2.2 of [RFC7009], which is indistinguishable from a successful cancellation. Clients that skip this check risk silently failing to cancel a pending deferred request.

8. Implementation Considerations

8.1. Polling and Callback Together

A client that has registered a deferred_client_notification_endpoint SHOULD continue to poll the token endpoint at the rate established by interval, rather than rely solely on the callback. Polling provides resilience against lost or delayed callbacks and limits the impact of a compromised callback endpoint that suppresses inbound notifications.

A client awaiting a deferred request whose expires_in is close to elapsing MAY send a final polling request slightly before the expiration, to mitigate the risk of a resolution that occurs too late to fall within the normal polling schedule.

This specification does not define a way to deliver the final token response directly via the callback. Long-running, high-value flows warrant the durability of polling: a single lost push request would otherwise lose the outcome of the entire deferred request.

8.2. Obtaining an Immediate Result Alongside a Deferred Request

A deferred request may take an arbitrarily long time to resolve. A client that also requires an immediate result — for example, a basic access token or an ID token to render initial user experience — can obtain one by starting a separate, non-deferred grant in parallel, while it continues to poll the deferred request for the final result.

How the client obtains the immediate result depends on the originating grant:

  • For the Authorization Code Grant, the client can perform a parallel OpenID Connect authentication with prompt=none to obtain an ID token (and, where applicable, an access token) without further user interaction.

  • For the Client Credentials Grant or [ID-JAG], the client can send an additional token request that omits the completion_mode parameter entirely, which the authorization server completes synchronously per the originating grant's rules.

The immediate result and the deferred result are independent: the immediate result reflects what the authorization server can issue synchronously, while the deferred request continues toward the final, possibly higher-assurance, token response. This lets a client proceed with available work immediately rather than blocking on the deferred outcome.

8.3. Progress Information in Errors

When responding to a polling request with authorization_pending, the authorization server SHOULD include progress information in the error_description field where appropriate. Examples include the current step in a multi-step process, the queue position of the deferred request, or an estimate of remaining processing time.

Authorization servers MUST NOT include personal data, document identifiers, or any data subject to data-minimization obligations in the error_description field. Progress information SHOULD be expressed as opaque step identifiers (for example, step=document_review) rather than free-form descriptions of user content.

The client MAY surface this information to a human operator if appropriate. Progress information is informational and the client MUST NOT depend on its presence or format.

8.4. Delegation to External Services

An authorization server may rely on one or more external services to resolve a deferred request — for example, an identity verification vendor, a fraud analysis system, a human review queue, or an enterprise governance platform. This specification does not define or constrain the trust relationship between the authorization server and any such service. From the client's perspective the authorization server remains the sole counterparty: the client has no direct relationship with, and need not be aware of, any external service involved in resolving the deferred request.

9. Relationship to Other Specifications

This section is informative.

9.1. Relationship to CIBA

This specification overlaps in mechanism with OpenID Connect Client-Initiated Backchannel Authentication (CIBA) [CIBA]: both issue an opaque identifier (CIBA's auth_req_id, this specification's deferral code), both define a polling mode governed by an interval parameter, and both define a callback notification that signals the client to retrieve the result. The differences are intentional.

Initiation model. CIBA is initiated by the client. DTR is not initiated by a client at all: an existing grant is initiated by its normal means and the authorization server elects to defer the resulting token response. CIBA cannot express deferral of a Client Credentials Grant or a Token Exchange ([RFC8693]) request, because CIBA's initiation inherently requires an end-user; this specification can, because deferral is decided at the token endpoint without regard to the originating grant's initiation pattern.

User model. CIBA is a user authentication specification. CIBA requires the client to identify the user that must be contacted, using parameters such as login_hint or id_token_hint. CIBA cannot express situations where the authorization server wishes to choose the user or system to contact dynamically.

10. Security Considerations

This specification builds on the security model of OAuth 2.1 (Section 7 of [OAUTH-2.1]) and the OAuth Security Best Current Practice ([RFC9700]). The considerations in those documents apply. The following considerations are specific to this specification.

10.1. Sender-Constraint Requirements

Deferral codes have lifetimes that may extend for hours or days. Over that window, possession alone confers the right to retrieve the eventual access token. To prevent the substitution attacks this implies, deferral codes are sender-constrained.

A client that is a public client per Section 2.1 of [OAUTH-2.1], or that is using an originating grant whose security profile mandates DPoP (for example, a profile that adopts [RFC9449] as a requirement), MUST present a DPoP proof on the initial token request that yields a deferred response. A confidential client using a strong client authentication method — for example, mutual TLS per [RFC8705] or private_key_jwt — MAY omit DPoP. A confidential client using a weaker client authentication method (client_secret_basic or client_secret_post) SHOULD bind the deferral code with DPoP.

When DPoP is presented on the initial token request, the authorization server MUST persist the JWK Thumbprint (Section 6.1 of [RFC9449]) of the proof key. Every subsequent polling request and revocation request that presents the resulting deferral code MUST carry a DPoP proof signed by the same key. The authorization server MUST reject any request whose proof does not chain to the persisted thumbprint with the error invalid_dpop_proof (Section 7 of [RFC9449]).

When the deferred request resolves and an access token is issued in response to a polling request, the issued access token MUST be DPoP-bound to the same key, consistent with Section 5 of [RFC9449]. A confidential client that did not bind the deferral code with DPoP likewise inherits its originating grant's access-token binding rules unchanged.

The callback notification path is not authenticated by DPoP; the post-callback polling request is the moment of redemption and is covered by the rules above.

10.2. Replay and Theft of Deferral Codes

A deferral code is sender-constrained per Section 10.1, inheriting the binding rules of Section 5 of [RFC9449] for refresh tokens. Its threat profile is the same as a refresh token of equivalent lifetime; the considerations of [RFC9449] apply unchanged.

The originating grant's credentials — for example, the authorization code returned to a client that requested response_type=code — are unaffected by DTR and remain subject to the same protections as in the non-deferred case (Section 4.1.3 of [OAUTH-2.1], Section 2.1.1 of [RFC9700]).

10.3. Polling-Interval Denial of Service

Misbehaving or compromised clients may poll faster than the announced interval, consuming authorization server resources. Authorization servers SHOULD respond to faster-than-interval polling with slow_down initially and MAY escalate to invalid_request for clients that persist; a client receiving invalid_request MUST stop polling for the affected deferral_code. Authorization servers MAY also impose per-client and per-flow rate limits independent of the announced interval.

10.4. Callback Endpoint Validation

The deferred_client_notification_endpoint registered by a client is an inbound surface from the authorization server. Authorization servers MUST require that the registered URI is an HTTPS URL.

When the client supplies a client_notification_token on the initial token request, the bearer credential presented in the callback's Authorization header authenticates the authorization server to the client (see Section 6.1). Even so, the callback carries no authorization grant: clients MUST retrieve the resolution by polling the token endpoint with the deferral code after a callback, not solely on the basis of having received the callback. Treating the callback alone as authoritative would allow a denial-of-service attacker who can cause callbacks to skip polling and miss the actual authorization decision.

A client that does not supply a client_notification_token cannot authenticate inbound callbacks at the application layer. Such a client MUST protect the callback endpoint by other means (mutual TLS, network-position assumptions, or a private network) and MUST treat any callback as advisory.

10.5. Callback Endpoint SSRF and Confused-Deputy Protections

The authorization server, on every callback, makes an outbound HTTP request to a client-controlled URL. Without further protections this would be a server-side request forgery (SSRF) surface: an attacker who can register a deferred_client_notification_endpoint could coerce the authorization server into probing internal infrastructure. The protections below are analogous to the redirect-URI hardening of Section 4.1 of [RFC9700] and to common SSRF mitigations from deployed CIBA ([CIBA]) implementations.

At registration time, the authorization server SHOULD reject a deferred_client_notification_endpoint whose hostname resolves to a private (RFC 6890), loopback, link-local, or unspecified address. Development and test deployments where such addresses are intentional are an explicit exception; production deployments SHOULD enforce the restriction.

At delivery time, the authorization server SHOULD re-resolve the hostname and verify that all returned addresses are public (subject to the same exception). To defeat DNS rebinding, the authorization server SHOULD pin the resolved address for the lifetime of the callback connection rather than rely on the resolver's cached entry.

The authorization server SHOULD set a finite connect and read timeout on the callback request and SHOULD cap the maximum response body size it is willing to read. The specification already requires the authorization server to ignore any HTTP response body (Section 6.1); the size cap exists to bound resource consumption from a misbehaving or malicious endpoint.

The authorization server MUST NOT include the deferral_code, the client_notification_token, or any other token material in the callback URL path or query string. The deferral_code is conveyed in the JSON request body and the client_notification_token, if present, is conveyed in the Authorization header per Section 6.1; placing either in the URL would expose the value to web-server access logs, intermediary proxies, and Referer headers on any subsequent request the client emits.

10.6. Client Notification Token Handling

A client_notification_token is a long-lived shared secret between the client and the authorization server: it persists from the initial token request until the deferral code expires or is revoked, which may be hours or days. Both parties MUST treat it with the storage and disposal care appropriate to a refresh token of equivalent lifetime (Section 6 of [RFC9700]). Authorization servers MUST dispose of the token when the deferral code resolves, expires, or is revoked. Clients MUST NOT log the token or expose it through error messages.

A client_notification_token is bound to a single deferral code. Clients MUST generate a fresh token for each initial token request that opts into DTR; reuse across requests collapses the per-request binding and weakens the protection that the token provides.

10.8. Logging and Disposal of Deferral Codes

A deferral code is a bearer-equivalent credential for the duration of expires_in. Authorization servers and clients MUST NOT log deferral code values in plaintext beyond the code's lifetime, and SHOULD treat them as secrets equivalent to refresh tokens with respect to log redaction, transport security, and at-rest storage. Standard web-server access logs that capture POST bodies retain deferral code values for the entire log retention window; implementations SHOULD configure their logging stacks to redact the deferral_code parameter wherever it appears — both as the polling request parameter and as the response field of deferred responses (see Section 5.4).

11. Privacy Considerations

11.1. Linkability Across Polling

Each polling request from a client to the token endpoint is identifiable to the authorization server via the client's authenticated identity and the deferral_code. For long-running deferred requests, the polling pattern itself (timing, network origin, user-agent of the client) may be observable to network intermediaries, even though the deferral_code is sent over TLS. Clients SHOULD avoid embedding distinguishing information in client-controlled fields that travel with polling requests.

11.2. Retention of deferral_code

Authorization servers retain deferral_code values, and any associated context required to complete the deferred request, for the lifetime indicated by expires_in. Authorization servers SHOULD retain only the data necessary to complete the request and to satisfy the cancellation and audit requirements of this specification, and SHOULD dispose of deferral_code values and their associated state once the request has resolved or expired. Disposal of any data collected during the deferred request itself is out of scope.

12. IANA Considerations

This section requests registrations in IANA registries as listed below. Final values for Reference are this RFC once published.

12.1. OAuth Parameters Registration

This specification requests registration of the following parameter in the IANA "OAuth Parameters" registry:

  • Parameter name: completion_mode

  • Parameter usage location: authorization request, token request

  • Change Controller: IETF

  • Specification Document(s): this specification

The value of completion_mode is a space-separated list of values registered in the "OAuth Completion Mode Values" registry defined below.

12.2. OAuth Completion Mode Values Registry

This specification requests the creation of a new IANA registry titled "OAuth Completion Mode Values" to hold the values that may appear in the space-separated completion_mode request parameter.

The registry follows the "Specification Required" registration policy [RFC8126]. Each registration comprises:

  • Value: the completion-mode value (a single token containing no spaces).

  • Description: a brief description of the value's meaning.

  • Change Controller: for values registered by the IETF, "IETF"; otherwise the registering party.

  • Specification Document(s): a reference to the document defining the value.

This specification registers the following initial value:

  • Value: deferred

  • Description: The client accepts a deferred response (Section 5.4) in place of an immediate token response or error.

  • Change Controller: IETF

  • Specification Document(s): this specification

12.3. OAuth Dynamic Client Registration Metadata Registration

This specification requests registration of the following client metadata definition in the IANA "OAuth Dynamic Client Registration Metadata" registry [RFC7591]:

  • Client Metadata Name: deferred_client_notification_endpoint

  • Client Metadata Description: HTTPS URL to which the authorization server sends a notification when a deferred authorization request resolves.

  • Change Controller: IETF

  • Specification Document(s): this specification

12.4. OAuth Grant Type Registry

This specification requests registration of the following grant type in the IANA "OAuth Grant Type" registry, used as the value of the grant_type parameter on polling token endpoint requests (Section 5.5):

  • Name: urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:deferred

  • Description: Polling grant type used to retrieve the eventual token response for a deferred authorization request, identified by a deferral code issued in a deferred response per Section 5.4.

  • Change Controller: IETF

  • Specification Document(s): this specification

12.5. OAuth Authorization Server Metadata Registry

This specification requests registration of the following metadata parameters in the IANA "OAuth Authorization Server Metadata" registry defined in [RFC8414]:

  • Metadata Name: deferred_token_response_supported

  • Metadata Description: Boolean. If true, the authorization server supports the deferred token response defined in this specification.

  • Change Controller: IETF

  • Specification Document(s): this specification

  • Metadata Name: revocation_endpoint_token_type_values_supported

  • Metadata Description: JSON array of token type URIs accepted by the authorization server's revocation endpoint (revocation_endpoint) as values of the token_type_hint parameter.

  • Change Controller: IETF

  • Specification Document(s): this specification

12.6. OAuth URI Registration

This specification requests registration of the following URIs in the IANA "OAuth URI" registry:

  • URI: urn:ietf:params:oauth:token-type:deferral-code

  • Common Name: Deferral Code

  • Change Controller: IETF

  • Specification Document(s): this specification

  • URI: urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:deferred

  • Common Name: Deferred Token Response Polling Grant

  • Change Controller: IETF

  • Specification Document(s): this specification

13. References

13.1. Normative References

[OAUTH-2.1]
Hardt, D., Parecki, A., and T. Lodderstedt, "The OAuth 2.1 Authorization Framework", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-oauth-v2-1-15, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-oauth-v2-1-15>.
[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC6750]
Jones, M. and D. Hardt, "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework: Bearer Token Usage", RFC 6750, DOI 10.17487/RFC6750, , <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, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7009>.
[RFC7234]
Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching", RFC 7234, DOI 10.17487/RFC7234, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7234>.
[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, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7591>.
[RFC8126]
Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126>.
[RFC8174]
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <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, , <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, , <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, , <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, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8705>.
[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, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9449>.
[RFC9700]
Lodderstedt, T., Bradley, J., Labunets, A., and D. Fett, "Best Current Practice for OAuth 2.0 Security", BCP 240, RFC 9700, DOI 10.17487/RFC9700, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9700>.

13.2. Informative References

[CIBA]
Rodriguez, G. F., Walter, F., Nennker, A., Tonge, D., and B. Campbell, "OpenID Connect Client-Initiated Backchannel Authentication Flow - Core 1.0", , <https://openid.net/specs/openid-client-initiated-backchannel-authentication-core-1_0.html>.
[FIPA]
Parecki, A., Fletcher, G., and P. Kasselman, "OAuth 2.0 for First-Party Applications", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-oauth-first-party-apps-03, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-oauth-first-party-apps-03>.
[ID-JAG]
Parecki, A., McGuinness, K., and B. Campbell, "Identity Assertion JWT Authorization Grant", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-oauth-identity-assertion-authz-grant-04, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-oauth-identity-assertion-authz-grant-04>.
[RFC6749]
Hardt, D., Ed., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework", RFC 6749, DOI 10.17487/RFC6749, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6749>.

Appendix A. Use Cases

This section is informative.

A.1. High-Risk Transaction Evaluation

An online banking application requires the user to authorize a high-risk transaction — for example, a large outbound transfer to a new payee. It is acceptable for the authorization to take from several minutes to a few hours, because the transfer can settle out of band; the user does not need to remain engaged with the application during that time.

When the user initiates the transaction, the banking application sends an authorization request to the bank's authorization server with completion_mode=deferred. The authorization server's risk-analysis system flags the transaction for additional review. The authorization server returns a deferred response carrying a deferral code.

The bank performs additional verification — contacting the user through alternative channels, performing manual review by a fraud analyst, or applying other risk controls. During this time the user is free to close the banking application; on the next session, the client polls the token endpoint with the deferral code and renders the result of the transaction. If the bank registered a callback endpoint, it receives a notification when the result is committed and prompts the user proactively.

A.2. Step-Up Assurance During an In-Session Operation

A user who signed in earlier with a low-assurance method (a stored password, for example) attempts an in-session operation that requires higher assurance — applying for a loan, changing contact details, or unlocking a sensitive feature. The authorization server needs to step up the user's assurance before issuing the token; the step-up may involve biometric verification or document presentation that is not guaranteed to complete instantly.

The client sends an authorization request with completion_mode=deferred. The authorization server determines that the requested operation requires step-up, collects the relevant information from the user, returns a deferred response, and proceeds with the verification asynchronously. The client renders any unblocked steps of the user's workflow (form fill, preview, draft persistence) while polling for the eventual token response. This avoids forcing the user to wait on a single blocking screen during a verification that may legitimately take hours.

A.3. Identity Verification Based on Physical Evidence

In jurisdictions without widely deployed digital identity, a common identity-verification flow scans a physical document — a passport or driver's license — supplemented by a liveness check (a short video of the end-user matched against the photograph on the document).

Most such verifications can be decided automatically. Some require a human operator to inspect the evidence, and that review can take hours. Regulation on automated decision-making in identity verification often makes the human-in-the-loop case mandatory rather than optional.

The client sends the originating grant's token request with completion_mode=deferred. When automated verification suffices, the authorization server completes synchronously. When it does not, the authorization server returns a deferred response, queues the evidence for human review, and notifies the client when the review completes. The client UX continues immediately for users in the automated path and degrades gracefully — to "we are reviewing your documents, you will be notified" — for users in the deferred path, without requiring two separate authorization flows.

A.4. Autonomous Agent Acting on Behalf of a User

An autonomous agent operates on behalf of a human principal under a narrow set of pre-approved scopes. The agent encounters a task that requires authorization beyond what was provisioned at enrollment — for example, executing a purchase above the per-transaction ceiling the principal granted.

The agent sends a token request to the authorization server with completion_mode=deferred. The authorization server, recognizing that the requested scope exceeds standing approval, contacts the human principal out of band — by mobile push, email, or a separate approval application — and returns a deferred response to the agent. The agent suspends the affected task and continues with other work. When the principal approves (or denies) the request out of band, the authorization server resolves the deferred request; the agent retrieves the result by polling and either completes the task or terminates it cleanly.

This pattern allows the principal to retain effective oversight without being on the synchronous path of every elevated request.

A.5. Enterprise Identity Governance Approval

A workforce client requests an access token whose scope corresponds to a sensitive resource — production database access, financial system administration, or PII export — that the enterprise gates through an Identity Governance and Administration (IGA) workflow. The workflow may involve approvals from the requestor's manager, the resource owner, and a security reviewer, and may take from several hours to several business days.

The client sends a token request with completion_mode=deferred. The authorization server, recognizing that the requested scope is under IGA control, opens a request in the governance system, returns a deferred response, and notifies the relevant approvers through their normal channels. The client polls the token endpoint and surfaces the request as "pending approval" to the requesting user. As approvers act, the governance system records its decision; on final approval, the authorization server resolves the deferred request and the polling client receives the access token. On rejection or timeout, polling returns access_denied and the client clears the pending state.

This pattern lets the authorization server remain the authoritative issuer of access tokens even when the decision logic lives in a purpose-built governance system, without requiring the client to integrate with the governance system directly.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the following people for their contributions and reviews of this specification: Karl McGuinness, Mikkel Christensen, Mick Hansen, Vitor Watanabe, Ricardo Pereira

Authors' Addresses

Frederik Krogsdal Jacobsen
Idura
Guilherme de Oliveira Niero
Itaú
Maxwell Gerber
Twilio