IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Query on RFC 7009

Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net> Mon, 22 July 2019 12:36 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 E9FA412001A for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 05:36:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 ryiOGfYyxeDH for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 05:36:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtprelay06.ispgateway.de (smtprelay06.ispgateway.de [80.67.31.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16768120043 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 05:36:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [84.158.229.114] (helo=[192.168.71.123]) by smtprelay06.ispgateway.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <torsten@lodderstedt.net>) id 1hpXYa-0002Y2-4l; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 14:36:44 +0200
From: Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net>
Message-Id: <6E258D5A-4919-463F-9826-020F80DC2392@lodderstedt.net>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1DB10293-4469-4E41-B559-15977D4F27EF"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 14:36:43 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CWLP265MB0884F68CC0B2DF0D536F5640D1ED0@CWLP265MB0884.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
To: James Howe <jmh205@cam.ac.uk>
References: <CWLP265MB0884F68CC0B2DF0D536F5640D1ED0@CWLP265MB0884.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-Df-Sender: dG9yc3RlbkBsb2RkZXJzdGVkdC5uZXQ=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/yJKYerUllbeL6IoStAN08Kg5-s8>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Query on RFC 7009
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: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 12:36:49 -0000

Hi James, 

> On 11. Jun 2019, at 17:53, James Howe <jmh205@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> Unless I'm mistaken, RFC 7009 doesn't specify the error response when the request is from a different client to the issuer.
> 
> Section 2.1:
>> If this  validation fails, the request is refused and the client is informed
>> of the error by the authorization server as described below.
> 
> The only relevant description below I can see is in Section 2.2.1:
>> The error presentation conforms to the definition in Section 5.2 of [RFC6749].
> 
> However none of the error codes there seem to be applicable.
> unauthorized_client appears to be the closest, although there is no grant type involved.
>> The authenticated client is not authorized to use this authorization grant type.
> 
> What is the intention here?

Since RFC 6749 does not utilise HTTPS status code 403 (which would be appropriate), the AS should respond with unauthorized_client as you suggested.

kind regards,
Torsten. 

> 
> ----
> James Howe
> Senior IT Developer
> Department of Engineering
> University of Cambridge
> +44 1223 748536
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email