Re: [OAUTH-WG] errata id 4206

Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com> Tue, 08 December 2015 17:04 UTC

Return-Path: <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C26021A0069 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 09:04:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.778
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.778 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_31=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DszJTDmrdK_n for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 09:04:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io0-x22a.google.com (mail-io0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C02A1A0052 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 09:04:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iofh3 with SMTP id h3so30743332iof.3 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 08 Dec 2015 09:04:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pingidentity.com; s=gmail; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=aHa5WrQi8UoKzMSdXlZQVmvWQ8L3TcSlwEvYG2in/cY=; b=Q1WWz49DMuNQwT85EPfIiNxec2dTkONAXn94jwBsu6OYQrSB2ihqcs+SY4BzJqlh7V 4SViPi1KOEeN4Fp7AT1VEGiGxbY+aPcU9ePBh/eAyMR6f3v79kJ12b/EbRKoD4rphusT hnqif7zhxfBqgvZnxowC9yPcj7KcghDi+RxFs=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=aHa5WrQi8UoKzMSdXlZQVmvWQ8L3TcSlwEvYG2in/cY=; b=llpS2z+L753o6X6wQT59c0ILvM2D7Uc556KA/bCaB/AKL/4po0rWcB4sU/enydPZGH NiEETKSjHthU2d9cDhGMCBt4lMs4i6erdACP0GvFlvdtKCEzjQ3fpb1IqawKTDFg12Er X8SQgCfzQgRs7PpJs9Q+UAIpee4t1uytO6b/fKMpYWLstPqKwIqWclyBfHBVR9bARsKu CVnCdbFz6AJMixuc7RROKirV6N/mMjeY3Q/HTDcWf8ZvHRP6ehLckvw61W4kJVIl7nVx z1AhSxwHaAFWaA6TeYeqr0Xk1R7jNaQOVfb/2TLhebOPIJT3zhJyxzI3g4koM3Bg3BNY r7LQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQku3z+eyJkDmrHYMRorkwe9lPzgC9O15LLp3EAB5feNSpQW4buxmud7nBiP9bwzPmdUYuPy9zvhjbDO2DjxNetqz7Ng1JYLD13lba3YRWS+4wzSSc4=
X-Received: by 10.107.36.208 with SMTP id k199mr1026251iok.147.1449594263427; Tue, 08 Dec 2015 09:04:23 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.23.133 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 09:03:53 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <0068E079-5B7B-4DB8-9AFF-F4C7E22D8305@ve7jtb.com>
References: <CAHbuEH7t8U=W_K-Wv2ddzZc1Z=wk8TWoN2RUCrDim1ekv4oXmg@mail.gmail.com> <0068E079-5B7B-4DB8-9AFF-F4C7E22D8305@ve7jtb.com>
From: Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 10:03:53 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+k3eCT-3FoZjgoUaCYhw3tUDM0+tdQAHar54NNBU+2vxNzf3g@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11405f0423f85c052665f7a1
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/95SH3JvGYqQ4LOgk3aG_IxwJ71I>
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] errata id 4206
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/oauth/>
List-Post: <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2015 17:04:25 -0000

+1

On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 10:01 AM, John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> wrote:

> The normative text in Sec 4.1.3 is correct.
>
> redirect_uri
>          REQUIRED, if the "redirect_uri" parameter was included in the
>          authorization request as described in
>          Section 4.1.1, and their values MUST be identical.
>
> The example is arguably not the best worded.
>
> From the servers point of view the redirect_uri supplied in step A is
> identical to the one it uses in step C.
>
> From the client’s point of view they receive a authorization response back
> on the redirect URI with additional parameters,
> so the redirect_uri value is only part of the response URI.
>
> I think his wording is better, but what is there is not strictly speaking
> wrong.
>
> It is in non normative text, and the normative text is correct.
>
> I would mark it as editorial.
>
> John B.
>
> > On Dec 8, 2015, at 1:20 PM, Kathleen Moriarty <
> kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > What do we do with the following errata, I don;t see any prior list
> responses:
> >
> > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg14033.html
> >
> > Thank you!
> >
> > --
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Kathleen
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OAuth mailing list
> > OAuth@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>