Re: [OAUTH-WG] Where to redirect when object request is invalid or unreachable (draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-19)

Filip Skokan <panva.ip@gmail.com> Thu, 25 July 2019 18:14 UTC

Return-Path: <panva.ip@gmail.com>
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 5FA591201EC for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 11:14:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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=gmail.com
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 woJhLsJ7OH3M for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 11:14:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-x331.google.com (mail-ot1-x331.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::331]) (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 6E5FF1201C6 for <OAuth@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 11:14:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-x331.google.com with SMTP id q20so52552004otl.0 for <OAuth@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 11:14:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=v38Yx0/WT4aCOWJvP8HIKWMnrH+jSSDxU2qEJoedoX4=; b=MJejAS5671v+LSPv/nagxCp3u0mgUFTR7hmL0fyYaPlf0tIrd8ygdeK8fCZnSWgct4 snj361OgVgzn5PWw6lK5TUH8ba2Ok+/6p1zis9ihZM+FV8WpFGi+GpAqrlVXH51o6Vu2 pehaqlEC5PCO3hAuKrRJccCZcDou8k3Joa2R89CWuruQI8qNFlmcMeWTar8imd9OhOOT 2vl2PaH6VsmgDpYPmNpGV04VnYOsa12NwlHwEbR5oQw9q//fxTxVTIe23RuZzAywXxBm iCbyDVCv93kZWzx0c4n12QUF0ZryG6u3Taw9LjXaAZ0RsPHTfBCBTM1Y3biU2XSALyUa ETSg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=v38Yx0/WT4aCOWJvP8HIKWMnrH+jSSDxU2qEJoedoX4=; b=pQe+7nu8Tdyox0ZoMt37lm0eibsWmzn9o0tGpNv2qjqyuR4BV8qNeHqMUnFWlEhdnD 2uBEWcapYF0PGpibVYdhPgvgIIomuKIU/fA5j9N8I6Jh6K82JE9097LNWHAwv6N77DnB 3tPYlrbsyfdpYWPTsU3kPxpQNFR3XJALLFuFaO2e0rnrVrEwD3epLa+6k7xQr5GSJB8j O+Fb5OcAX5NODTUzCZlebIKzeK11L9EDwDkorYfhQlyn2YdnC66fu9l949+bkSgztl0A 6+BksEARP5bNoy1PsvukMuMO2tmMUTsTVINmX+kNf3TGMyMLuWFTQdJfi2NJ13D+eEqN oI6g==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVVSmID9RQPleioNXX7bdxYvK09BEJFbWV3iJ3HZtMmtQtlw9mo rBgLrVYnyPJjPcSDZhuOOuPOJHyjnGGEoJ9Iw1UVRRdy4w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy8Hg/d3wTD+MPxc6SXHJTVwwxxfm7ojHnivitcYLO94OFlOkBbvmxhrnKZpYQJ1TYxclRZ6rfc8nggNJ/t5rg=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:7a4e:: with SMTP id z14mr39721728otm.258.1564078478722; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 11:14:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <10d9fb21-f448-aba5-5d11-308e34a34fdd@mail.ru>
In-Reply-To: <10d9fb21-f448-aba5-5d11-308e34a34fdd@mail.ru>
From: Filip Skokan <panva.ip@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 20:14:25 +0200
Message-ID: <CALAqi__Xrsu2OwhYPZJ-5_7woF-UcEjoUszd49z745p9dRo5YQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?B?0KLQsNC90LPQuCDQm9C1INCf0LXQvdGB?= <tangui.lepense=40mail.ru@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: oauth <OAuth@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000200aa8058e856644"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/qBlaEWfPfgQAhnXJ8KY9WamPZLU>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Where to redirect when object request is invalid or unreachable (draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-19)
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: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 18:14:49 -0000

See my reply inline.

S pozdravem,
*Filip Skokan*


On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 at 19:57, Танги Ле Пенс <tangui.lepense=
40mail.ru@dmarc.ietf.org>; wrote:

> In https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-19#section-6, it
> is stated that an error is to be returned when the object request is
> invalid. These errors are "invalid_request_uri" and
> "invalid_request_object".
>
> However, to which redirect URI redirect in the following cases:
> * the request object is invalid (eg. invalid signature), should we still
> use client_id/redirect_uri of the invalid request object?

* the request URI could not be reached
> * the request object is encrypted and cannot be decrypted (bad key)
>

FS: if the client_id & redirect_uri combination is valid (the uri is valid
for that client) - yes, its fine to use those (dtto state). this applies to
all three


>
> Would it be acceptable to use the "client_id" and "redirect_uri" request
> query parameters in such a case? Although it contradicts the current
> specification which states that they shall not be used, and it would
> defeat confidentiality when using encryption.
>

FS: how would it defeat confidentiality?


>
> Another option is not redirecting and displaying the error message on
> the AS, like when the client_id is unknown for instance.
>

FS: also an acceptable outcome, one with no caveats


>
> Also I don't get the example in
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-19#section-5.2.2 :
>
>       https://server.example.com/authorize?
>         response_type=code%20id_token
>         &client_id=s6BhdRkqt3
>         &request_uri=https%3A%2F%2Ftfp.example.org%2Frequest.jwt
>         %23GkurKxf5T0Y-mnPFCHqWOMiZi4VS138cQO_V7PZHAdM
>         &state=af0ifjsldkj
>
> in regards to the following statement in
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-19#section-5 :
>
>     The client MAY send the parameters included in the request object
>     duplicated in the query parameters as well for the backward
>     compatibility etc.  However, the authorization server supporting this
>     specification MUST only use the parameters included in the request
>     object.
>
> My understanding is that "response_type", "client_id" and "state" will
> be ignored by a JAR-compliant OAuth2 server. Isn't it confusing to add
> them to the example?
>

FS: they will only be ignored IF they are also part of the request object
so i believe its fine to have them part of this example.


>
> Maybe I've missed something?
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Tangui
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>