[OAUTH-WG] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9126 (6711)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Fri, 15 October 2021 19:38 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
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 C47813A0B02 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Oct 2021 12:38:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 Gd75x7xfr6A7 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Oct 2021 12:38:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09ECD3A0B0F for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Oct 2021 12:38:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 499) id E6C9E20EBD5; Fri, 15 Oct 2021 12:38:47 -0700 (PDT)
To: torsten@lodderstedt.net, bcampbell@pingidentity.com, nat@sakimura.org, dave@tonge.org, panva.ip@gmail.com, rdd@cert.org, kaduk@mit.edu, Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net, rifaat.s.ietf@gmail.com
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: bcampbell@pingidentity.com, oauth@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20211015193847.E6C9E20EBD5@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2021 12:38:47 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/mT3u314vdSRxzzXMkbpc4hR6VZQ>
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9126 (6711)
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: Fri, 15 Oct 2021 19:39:00 -0000

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9126,
"OAuth 2.0 Pushed Authorization Requests".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6711

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>

Section: 3.

Original Text
-------------
   Clients MAY use the "request" parameter as defined in JAR [RFC9101]
   to push a Request Object JWT to the authorization server.  The rules
   for processing, signing, and encryption of the Request Object as
   defined in JAR [RFC9101] apply.  Request parameters required by a
   given client authentication method are included in the "application/
   x-www-form-urlencoded" request directly and are the only parameters
   other than "request" in the form body (e.g., mutual TLS client
   authentication [RFC8705] uses the "client_id" HTTP request parameter,
   while JWT assertion-based client authentication [RFC7523] uses
   "client_assertion" and "client_assertion_type").  All other request
   parameters, i.e., those pertaining to the authorization request
   itself, MUST appear as claims of the JWT representing the
   authorization request.

Corrected Text
--------------
  Clients MAY use the request and client_id parameters as defined in 
  JAR [RFC9101] to push a Request Object JWT to the authorization 
  server. The rules for processing, signing, and encryption of the 
  Request Object as defined in JAR [RFC9101] apply. Request parameters
  required by a given client authentication method are included in the
  application/x-www-form-urlencoded request directly and are the only 
  parameters other than request and client_id in the form body (e.g.,
  JWT assertion-based client authentication [RFC7523] uses 
  "client_assertion" and "client_assertion_type") HTTP request
  parameters). All authorization request parameters, i.e., those 
  pertaining to the authorization request itself, MUST appear as
  claims of the JWT representing the authorization request.

Notes
-----
That first paragraph of Sec 3 was not properly updated to come inline with JAR (now RFC9101) when it changed in draft -21 to require "client_id" in the authorization request in addition to in addition to "request" or "request_uri" - so is  somewhat ambiguous in maybe suggesting that "client_id" isn't required. But it is required based on how PAR works and RFC9101 requiring "client_id".

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. 

--------------------------------------
RFC9126 (draft-ietf-oauth-par-10)
--------------------------------------
Title               : OAuth 2.0 Pushed Authorization Requests
Publication Date    : September 2021
Author(s)           : T. Lodderstedt, B. Campbell, N. Sakimura, D. Tonge, F. Skokan
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Web Authorization Protocol
Area                : Security
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG