Re: [OAUTH-WG] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7636 (5687)

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Sun, 14 April 2019 16:04 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
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 3D9BA1200D7 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Apr 2019 09:04:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 0Zeh23gBmuEB for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Apr 2019 09:04:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9CA11200DF for <oauth@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Apr 2019 09:04:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu (24-107-191-124.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com [24.107.191.124]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id x3EG4b0k009510 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 14 Apr 2019 12:04:39 -0400
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2019 11:04:37 -0500
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: n-sakimura@nri.co.jp, ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com, naa@google.com, rdd@cert.org, Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net, rifaat.ietf@gmail.com, collinsauve@gmail.com, oauth@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20190414160436.GD10547@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <20190409220246.5100EB80458@rfc-editor.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190409220246.5100EB80458@rfc-editor.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/I3VbriKRFApHyHL2AR1uN53fXJo>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7636 (5687)
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sun, 14 Apr 2019 16:04:50 -0000

This looks correct to me, so I'll mark it as verified.

-Ben

On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 03:02:46PM -0700, RFC Errata System wrote:
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7636,
> "Proof Key for Code Exchange by OAuth Public Clients".
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5687
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Collin Sauve <collinsauve@gmail.com>
> 
> Section: 5
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
> Server implementations of this specification MAY accept OAuth2.0
> clients that do not implement this extension.  If the "code_verifier"
> is not received from the client in the Authorization Request, servers
> supporting backwards compatibility revert to the OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749]
> protocol without this extension.
> 
> As the OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749] server responses are unchanged by this
> specification, client implementations of this specification do not
> need to know if the server has implemented this specification or not
> and SHOULD send the additional parameters as defined in Section 4 to
> all servers.
> 
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> Server implementations of this specification MAY accept OAuth2.0
> clients that do not implement this extension.  If the "code_challenge"
> is not received from the client in the Authorization Request, servers
> supporting backwards compatibility revert to the OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749]
> protocol without this extension.
> 
> As the OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749] server responses are unchanged by this
> specification, client implementations of this specification do not
> need to know if the server has implemented this specification or not
> and SHOULD send the additional parameters as defined in Section 4 to
> all servers.
> 
> 
> Notes
> -----
> The code_verifier is not sent in the authorization request.
> 
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party  
> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC7636 (draft-ietf-oauth-spop-15)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Proof Key for Code Exchange by OAuth Public Clients
> Publication Date    : September 2015
> Author(s)           : N. Sakimura, Ed., J. Bradley, N. Agarwal
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : Web Authorization Protocol
> Area                : Security
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG