That's a good point. The context of the original discussion that led to this thread wasn't about a client programmatically acting on the information. Rather that banks (and similar entities) can be reluctant to include additional info in descriptive error messages so having a specific error code might help with the manual troubleshooting situation of problems with the presented redirect URI. That rationale seems rather dubious.
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 1:13 AM Neil Madden <neil.mad...@forgerock.com> wrote: > Making it a specific error code rather than just an error message suggests > that the client can do something with that information. That doesn’t seem > likely to me. It’s most likely caused by a misconfiguration that somebody > needs to manually sort out rather than something that can be automatically > corrected, so I don’t see a reason for this to get its own error code. > > — Neil > > On 2 Dec 2020, at 23:28, Brian Campbell <bcampbell= > 40pingidentity....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > > During the course of a recent OIDF FAPI WG discussion (the FAPI profiles > use PAR for authz requests) on this issue > <https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/issues/343/what-is-authenticity-and-integrity-of-the> > it was noted that there's no specific error code for problems with the > redirect_uri (the example in > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-oauth-par-04.html#section-2.3 > even shows a general error code with mention of the redirect_uri not being > valid in the error description). Some folks on that call thought it would > be worthwhile to have a more specific error code for an invalid > redirect_uri and I reluctantly took an action item to raise the issue here. > At the time I'd forgotten that PAR had already passed WGLC. But it's been > sitting idle while awaiting the shepherd writeup since mid September so > it's maybe realistic to think the window for a small change is still open. > > Presumably nothing like an "invalid_redirect_uri" error code was defined > in RFC 6749 because that class of errors could not be returned to the > client via redirection. But the data flow in PAR would allow for a > "invalid_redirect_uri" so it's not an unreasonable thing to do. > > As I write this message, however, I'm not personally convinced that it's > worth making a change to PAR at this point. But I did say I'd bring the > question up in the WG list and I'm just trying to be true to my word. So > here it is. Please weigh in, if you have opinions on the matter. > > > > *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and > privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any > review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. > If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender > immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from > your computer. Thank you.*_______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > > > ForgeRock values your Privacy <https://www.forgerock.com/your-privacy> -- _CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from your computer. Thank you._
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
