Hi Alex, OAuth 2.0 doesn't forbid other params to be present in the response. If you find such - ignore them.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749#section-4.1.2 > The client MUST ignore unrecognized response parameters. I have a theory why those 3 extra params (scope, authuser, prompt) are there, but I don't think it would matter in your case. Vladimir On 05/11/2020 02:23, Alex Kalp wrote: > Hi All, > > While trying out the OAuth 2.0 authorization code grant type with > Google, I got the following response to my registered redirect_uri. > > https://localhost:9000/app_uri?*state*=caf324471khs872&%20*code*=4/5wFzvDar86R-AJWCIE&%20*scope*=profile%20openid%20https://www.googleapis.com/auth/userinfo.profile&%20*authuser*=0&%20*prompt*=consent > > As per the RFC6749 section 4.1.2, the authorization response from the > authorization endpoint only includes code and state. > > Appreciate if you can share any insights on why Google adds scope, > authuser and prompt parameters to the response, which are not in the > OAuth 2.0 RFC - and do we consider those additional parameters as a > violation of the RFC6749? > > Thanks! > -Alex > > > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth -- Vladimir Dzhuvinov
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
