Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Where to redirect when object request is invalid or unreachable (draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-19)
From: Filip Skokan <[email-masked]>
To: Танги Ле Пенс<tangui.lepense=[email-masked]>
Cc: oauth <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 20:14:25 +0200
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>

See my reply inline.

S pozdravem,
*Filip Skokan*

On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 at 19:57, Танги Ле Пенс <tangui.lepense=
[email-masked]> 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
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>