Re: [OAUTH-WG] PAR error for redirect URI?

To be clear, I'm not advocating to skip the registration, just wanted to
mention a potential concern. If the process allows it and it will not
introduce more delay to publication, I think we should go ahead and
register the error code.

Best,
*Filip*

On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 at 11:06, Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net>
wrote:

>
>
> > Am 03.12.2020 um 09:56 schrieb Filip Skokan <panva.ip@gmail.com>:
> >
> > There are several documents already mentioning "invalid_redirect_uri" as
> an error code, specifically RFC7519 and OpenID Connect Dynamic Client
> Registration 1.0. But these don't register it in the IANA OAuth Extensions
> Error Registry, presumably because they're neither for the authorization or
> token endpoints.
> >
> > While I think it'd be great if we had this error code registered, I also
> worry that its registration could confuse implementers to think it's okay
> to return it from the authorization endpoint.
>
> I understand your concern. On the other hand, registering the error code
> is in my opinion the proper way forward. The registration is scoped to a
> usage location, should be pushed authorization endpoint then, and RFC6749
> gives clear guidance on how to treat errors related to the redirect URI at
> the authorization endpoint.
>
> "If the request fails due to a missing, invalid, or mismatching
>    redirection URI, … authorization server ... MUST NOT automatically
> redirect the user-agent to the
>    invalid redirection URI."
>
> I think if an implementor ignores this, it will ignore any advise.
>
> best regards,
> Torsten.
>
> >
> > Best,
> > Filip
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 at 00:29, Brian Campbell <bcampbell=
> 40pingidentity.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> > During the course of a recent OIDF FAPI WG discussion (the FAPI profiles
> use PAR for authz requests) on this issue it was noted that there's no
> specific error code for problems with the redirect_uri (the example in
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-oauth-par-04.html#section-2.3
> even shows a general error code with mention of the redirect_uri not being
> valid in the error description). Some folks on that call thought it would
> be worthwhile to have a more specific error code for an invalid
> redirect_uri and I reluctantly took an action item to raise the issue here.
> At the time I'd forgotten that PAR had already passed WGLC. But it's been
> sitting idle while awaiting the shepherd writeup since mid September so
> it's maybe realistic to think the window for a small change is still open.
> >
> > Presumably nothing like an "invalid_redirect_uri" error code was defined
> in RFC 6749 because that class of errors could not be returned to the
> client via redirection. But the data flow in PAR would allow for a
> "invalid_redirect_uri" so it's not an unreasonable thing to do.
> >
> > As I write this message, however, I'm not personally convinced that it's
> worth making a change to PAR at this point. But I did say I'd bring the
> question up in the WG list and I'm just trying to be true to my word. So
> here it is. Please weigh in, if you have opinions on the matter.
> >
> >
> >
> > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and
> privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any
> review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited.
> If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender
> immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from
> your computer. Thank you._______________________________________________
> > OAuth mailing list
> > OAuth@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> > _______________________________________________
> > OAuth mailing list
> > OAuth@ietf.org
> >
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth&source=gmail-imap&ust=1607590629000000&usg=AOvVaw3aW1gdv4EEiLmNYzlsJj-A
>
>