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

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

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)
Precedence: list

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

[OAUTH-WG] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7636 (5… RFC Errata System
Re: [OAUTH-WG] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC763… Benjamin Kaduk