Re: [OAUTH-WG] errata id 4206

Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 08 December 2015 17:10 UTC

Return-Path: <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.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 CCE4F1A00FE for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 09:10:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=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 oJ9iXvIM6XDX for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 09:10:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x230.google.com (mail-wm0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::230]) (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 782B71A00FC for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 09:10:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wmww144 with SMTP id w144so38266220wmw.0 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 08 Dec 2015 09:10:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=lt9eP70QBFmbv1tyHHG+DrH+lZw6+216L/K5VP9noys=; b=R6xBZkFd41AznjDlhfwuPJntJ4Au8vFb2UC4nCrEaKKeZ5ab9/sVPUOl86OIlK3WZb xKTHtaILouKLHhTcGmuWAF2LJ5P2DNs8C8jSajE5HyD02Ldfhjp8w4EY1Qm6f9dODBDC mPpMmK+aBJSKwTM6QkgTwgKNNvFqJ0EMn4rP9nHhHfW9XBfX0SbbDemioVcYRRuYLYR4 DjNF6mmvTeujVNgVKXgCaKsMMFD66hArfdLchoq5h8zZvYPd1BfRTgMI99G8+h853bBh r3FSL49FLP8y6anAFCcXfwoqUrYBVrkPq5T1UANJNJ5KkJnHd96zM7u6A0xj+E4LVdy2 sJ4A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.179.162 with SMTP id dh2mr680111wjc.17.1449594642906; Tue, 08 Dec 2015 09:10:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.28.52.130 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 09:10:42 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CA+k3eCT-3FoZjgoUaCYhw3tUDM0+tdQAHar54NNBU+2vxNzf3g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHbuEH7t8U=W_K-Wv2ddzZc1Z=wk8TWoN2RUCrDim1ekv4oXmg@mail.gmail.com> <0068E079-5B7B-4DB8-9AFF-F4C7E22D8305@ve7jtb.com> <CA+k3eCT-3FoZjgoUaCYhw3tUDM0+tdQAHar54NNBU+2vxNzf3g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 12:10:42 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHbuEH5ibvR6m_BKKqTYNZ57UZUWpGdxSjuyKenmh5szRR=O1g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/CfbcIUd0RGgtg1wK9slw7K5m3Ck>
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 17:10:46 -0000

Thank you, both!  I'll note this as editorial and will also note that
the URI is the same in A and C, but that the wording is better, hence
editorial.

Kathleen

On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Brian Campbell
<bcampbell@pingidentity.com> wrote:
> +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
>
>



-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen