[OAUTH-WG] requirement of redirect_uri in access token requests
Doug Tangren <d.tangren@gmail.com> Fri, 29 April 2011 18:21 UTC
Return-Path: <d.tangren@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B35EE067F for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Apr 2011 11:21:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nhyH-hdQCUd7 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Apr 2011 11:21:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gw0-f44.google.com (mail-gw0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A5C0E0675 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Apr 2011 11:21:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gwb20 with SMTP id 20so1711672gwb.31 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Apr 2011 11:21:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=Cyz0IAEdLn5B9+jwveVz8PjP2nvt5Uo0XDhqrkPdtw4=; b=IWafdSe+YsCG3CoetfT+Xp5zXCayQDaCRNfQdpdx1ifXbQ/S0z7xujb20oJKn4WqOV xfFMBiuJ0PuOyTqFZA4p6rmNi/f8KsKYXG2qV816KMeUYkXYpxa8aGwP3UgIIg7u4F0C buSVuu9PzHM4hjku6jSeGqvi99I1V5IM3tCqo=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; b=WNJYsm0BxDwhg973wmi6OX3kGqaNsp7plwIHChpd+qpptnBiF3JfLyOtuYskJ4Z9OB g6bv3qEdqTaXfoZQKXlIXnuzOfGQWzGo0awf+lc1R/73alyk6wJZfbTX6/l4Qs4tcH1l q5I2Nv3hou7SBX0ThAHfl/ut4jW4y4B1jLDSg=
Received: by 10.91.4.19 with SMTP id g19mr4498094agi.193.1304101300159; Fri, 29 Apr 2011 11:21:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.90.57.33 with HTTP; Fri, 29 Apr 2011 11:21:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Doug Tangren <d.tangren@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 14:21:20 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTinLODGc4sK+pwg9iLqMHkakj-vYNg@mail.gmail.com>
To: oauth@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0016363b880ebf468804a212be8c"
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] requirement of redirect_uri in access token requests
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 18:21:44 -0000
Is this required or not? In the example http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-v2-15#section-3.1 it's listed in the example but not itemized as optional or required. It's not in the example for refreshing tokens http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-v2-15#section-6 though that section links back to section 3.1 which does use a redirect_uri in the example. Should the redirect_uri be a requirement for client authentication or is it optional? -Doug Tangren http://lessis.me
- [OAUTH-WG] requirement of redirect_uri in access … Doug Tangren
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] requirement of redirect_uri in acc… Brian Eaton
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] requirement of redirect_uri in acc… Freeman, Tim
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] requirement of redirect_uri in acc… Brian Eaton