[OAUTH-WG] PAR error for redirect URI?

Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com> Wed, 02 December 2020 23:28 UTC

Return-Path: <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CAD33A15FC for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 15:28:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pingidentity.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GsY0mFuOOEmv for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 15:28:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x230.google.com (mail-lj1-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::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 607CE3A15FB for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 15:28:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x230.google.com with SMTP id r18so423251ljc.2 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 02 Dec 2020 15:28:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pingidentity.com; s=google; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=WpjwcpRhmhYKR9ivd6Zrd3S95cxXTcUA/qAK1rgdBGY=; b=RRDsPPDdmzI5YD1dIRxdMdFykmgy7LFIs0OI5wD23MRKoo1dMFzmrdkYkBER9531g/ dV9Sz9D2gOJP0niwBAEyr7AzozypSfgLv09nFLDa9h/uDsq3+seBq0M5zuPlmbE8t5j0 4Ljq/2MJYFYEzmgxlq53ro7UlB8bjevexARmYrSRVRvRE3HgVdt0I8Qs4YjTZvDWsUvm ovRtPoNjqRIw4V5hBpsJOEpMaRQl8QhqItJimt1BuAy/XV/4YxVBSOp92NYKTNj9JOVG RZokJq9RRMMtDF/2t81S0rQFn/tDTQDVP0F/iGvv2MpwVdSY4YJrVcgXjWGAp/94+l0F Wa9A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=WpjwcpRhmhYKR9ivd6Zrd3S95cxXTcUA/qAK1rgdBGY=; b=kSh/ej6o3IS0LXD1EwTChGaRvfAsB5iC6uVxnXKifeBcgUdHPPsOje/ONYJx5qk2G7 AaT2Q9gaAHrqwU46mczIFrwLA80t2ExxYiI4AawX7a0bhYoax/9cprxRpu4yb8IYO+XR Vje3lMA2ktzUExADCi80hdHAB0RxLS+a7JBeE8BPYJTJDQymklRVJrzMHWBak2DycYKn ZFnJhBwu3jBo5Rs+H24dZDM/2x+FhIjxyKptyOHyI8UD5D3jCxLh70BHJwghUsV7YYeE ASerpZ+pRNO7gtGexPV0vvlpxHoDdU0Hl85MKL8TXiPjx1F7Y+Aw4hPfE2tCkHNQyccs 2NFQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530TgllDzZ6/JJDuW4txRjMzGyyllId1TRcPaECqHp8u1YO5R8fq NEupVW4LWQ/Ain4uWwmdOGahbwKVH25Fv3un9QZS0HWrNlb9L8c9hpTQQd9sHXzkbxVHl+84S+0 sKh5urnIVVhE9IkHH97I=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxzXLB4W1KCYg4J73jfEpVjvQUyU3Dqsrlj/KV9QI54AQETuW9HO1P8jy8Gspwyx9N+1ThglVvNqsgRW4jpj1Y=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:29c:: with SMTP id b28mr96407ljo.368.1606951714236; Wed, 02 Dec 2020 15:28:34 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2020 16:28:08 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+k3eCQitAWnHaw2zz0jwyjHxWPYe0VPct1Op1T13BVhydkXDQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: oauth <oauth@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000019446a05b5839ad7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/bxPK--atBjdIhoBYZ6t2yxBN57s>
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] PAR error for redirect URI?
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: Wed, 02 Dec 2020 23:28:39 -0000

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
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._