Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue 16, revised Redirection URI section (3.1.2)

Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net> Mon, 25 July 2011 16:09 UTC

Return-Path: <torsten@lodderstedt.net>
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 E57F921F8748 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 09:09:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.748
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.748 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.501, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35]
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 vqdwYdVVbVbo for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 09:09:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtprelay06.ispgateway.de (smtprelay06.ispgateway.de [80.67.31.101]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E17D021F875E for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 07:18:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [130.129.17.214] by smtprelay06.ispgateway.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from <torsten@lodderstedt.net>) id 1QlLzW-0002O7-Hj; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 16:18:42 +0200
Message-ID: <4E2D7B3F.10001@lodderstedt.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:18:39 -0400
From: Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; de; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
References: <4E274554.5070606@lodderstedt.net> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72345021F378BC@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
In-Reply-To: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72345021F378BC@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Df-Sender: torsten@lodderstedt-online.de
Cc: OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue 16, revised Redirection URI section (3.1.2)
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: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 16:09:24 -0000

Hi Eran,

Am 25.07.2011 03:28, schrieb Eran Hammer-Lahav:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
>> Of Torsten Lodderstedt
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 2:15 PM
>> "The authorization server redirects the user-agent to the
>>      client's redirection URI previously established with the
>>      authorization server during the client registration process."
>>
>> Conflicts with section 3.1.2.3, which allows to pass a redirect_uri via URI
>> query parameter.
> Added 'or when initiating the authorization request'
>
>> 3.1.2.1 Endpoint Confidentiality
>>
>> What does "endpoint" confidentiality mean? Which endpoint does this text
>> refer to? The client's redirect_uri endpoint?
> This is a sub-section of the Redirection URI endpoint.

ok, but how can an endpoint be confidential?

>> 3.1.2.5. Endpoint Content
>>
>> As this section discusses security aspects of the client's implementation of
>> the redirect_uri page, shouldn't this go to the security considerations
>> section?
> I think it is important enough to appear earlier. It is part of my effort to integrate concrete normative language from the security sections up to the protocol sections.
>

Understood and in support for this approach. Wouldn't this mean to 
remove some text from section 10 in order to prevent redundancies? 
Regarding this particular section: I think the two different issues 
(transport security and endpoint authenticity) should be presented 
separately.

regards,
Torsten.

> EHL
>
>