[OAUTH-WG] ارجو منكم استعادة المال من هذا الهاكر لقد خدعني وارسل بريد عشوائي ملغوم برمز مميز ومن ثم استولى علا رموزات مميزة من حقي الخاص ارجو منكم حظرة من سحب الاموال وابلاغ منصة بيناناس في التحقيق مع
___ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Digest, Vol 181, Issue 56
ارجو منكم حذف وحضر yxz والعنواين الاخرى المشتبهة التي لاتنتمي الى معاملاتي في الأربعاء، ٢٩ نوفمبر ٢٠٢٣, ١١:٠٢ م كتب: > Send OAuth mailing list submissions to > oauth@ietf.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > oauth-requ...@ietf.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > oauth-ow...@ietf.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of OAuth digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > >1. Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6749 (7716) > (Rebecca VanRheenen) > > > -- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2023 11:14:44 -0800 > From: Rebecca VanRheenen > To: Roman Danyliw > Cc: he...@alexwilson.io, dick.ha...@gmail.com, oauth@ietf.org, RFC > Editor > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6749 (7716) > Message-ID: <6afed015-73a0-4e0a-9ab9-8869dd557...@amsl.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Hi Roman, > > We are unable to verify this erratum that the submitter marked as > editorial. Please note that we have changed the ?Type? of the following > errata report to ?Technical?. As Stream Approver, please review and set > the Status and Type accordingly (see the definitions at > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata-definitions/). > > Note that this errata report has two parts. One part states that " > example.com should be client.example.com?. This is a duplicate of EID > 4819, which is still in Reported state (see > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4819). Keep this in mind during your > review. > > You may review the report at: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7716 > > Please see https://www.rfc-editor.org/how-to-verify/ for further > information on how to verify errata reports. > > Further information on errata can be found at: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php > > Thank you. > > RFC Editor/rv > > > > > On Nov 29, 2023, at 8:56 AM, RFC Errata System < > rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6749, > > "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework". > > > > -- > > You may review the report below and at: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7716 > > > > -- > > Type: Editorial > > Reported by: Alex Wilson > > > > Section: 4.2.2 > > > > Original Text > > - > > For example, the authorization server redirects the user-agent by > > sending the following HTTP response (with extra line breaks for > > display purposes only): > > > > HTTP/1.1 302 Found > > Location: http://example.com/cb#access_token=2YotnFZFEjr1zCsicMWpAA > > =xyz_type=example_in=3600 > > > > > > Corrected Text > > -- > > For example, the authorization server redirects the user-agent by > > sending the following HTTP response (with extra line breaks for > > display purposes only): > > > > HTTP/1.1 302 Found > > Location: > http://client.example.com/cb?access_token=2YotnFZFEjr1zCsicMWpAA > > =xyz_type=example_in=3600 > > > > > > Notes > > - > > - Host example.com should be client.example.com to be consistent with > other examples. > > - A hash is used for the query parameters when a question mark should > have been used. > > > > Instructions: > > - > > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". (If it is spam, it > > will be removed shortly by the RFC Production Center.) Please > > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party > > will log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > > > > -- > > RFC6749 (draft-ietf-oauth-v2-31) > > -- > > Title : The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework > > Publication Date: October 2012 > > Author(s) : D. Hardt, Ed. > > Category: PROPOSED STANDARD > > Source : Web Authorization Protocol > > Area: Security > > Stream : IETF > > Verifying Party : IESG > > > > > > -- > > Subject: Digest Footer > > ___ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > > > -- > > End of OAuth Digest, Vol 181, Issue 56 > ** > ___ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Digest, Vol 181, Issue 55
ently posted as "Reported". (If it is spam, it > >> will be removed shortly by the RFC Production Center.) Please > >> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > >> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party > >> will log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > >> > >> -- > >> RFC6749 (draft-ietf-oauth-v2-31) > >> -- > >> Title : The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework > >> Publication Date: October 2012 > >> Author(s) : D. Hardt, Ed. > >> Category: PROPOSED STANDARD > >> Source : Web Authorization Protocol > >> Area: Security > >> Stream : IETF > >> Verifying Party : IESG > >> > >> ___ > >> OAuth mailing list > >> OAuth@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > >> > > ___ > > OAuth mailing list > > OAuth@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > > > > -- > _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._ > -- next part -- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/oauth/attachments/20231129/97b4ee79/attachment.htm > > > > -- > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2023 11:41:17 -0700 > From: Brian Campbell > To: RFC Errata System > Cc: he...@alexwilson.io, oauth@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6749 (7716) > Message-ID: > nsk074tzz+egq_bwt-sr374d...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > This errata should also be rejected for reasons similar to > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7715 - section 4.2.2 is about the > implicit flow, which returns parameters in the fragment part of the URL, > not query parameters. And that kind of consistency of hostname values in > examples does not warrant an errata. > > > > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 9:56?AM RFC Errata System < > rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> > wrote: > > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6749, > > "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework". > > > > -- > > You may review the report below and at: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7716 > > > > -- > > Type: Editorial > > Reported by: Alex Wilson > > > > Section: 4.2.2 > > > > Original Text > > - > >For example, the authorization server redirects the user-agent by > >sending the following HTTP response (with extra line breaks for > >display purposes only): > > > > HTTP/1.1 302 Found > > Location: http://example.com/cb#access_token=2YotnFZFEjr1zCsicMWpAA > >=xyz_type=example_in=3600 > > > > > > Corrected Text > > -- > >For example, the authorization server redirects the user-agent by > >sending the following HTTP response (with extra line breaks for > >display purposes only): > > > > HTTP/1.1 302 Found > > Location: > > http://client.example.com/cb?access_token=2YotnFZFEjr1zCsicMWpAA > >=xyz_type=example_in=3600 > > > > > > Notes > > - > > - Host example.com should be client.example.com to be consistent with > > other examples. > > - A hash is used for the query parameters when a question mark should > have > > been used. > > > > Instructions: > > - > > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". (If it is spam, it > > will be removed shortly by the RFC Production Center.) Please > > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party > > will log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > > > > -- > > RFC6749 (draft-ietf-oauth
Re: [OAUTH-WG] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6749 (7716)
Hi Roman, We are unable to verify this erratum that the submitter marked as editorial. Please note that we have changed the “Type” of the following errata report to “Technical”. As Stream Approver, please review and set the Status and Type accordingly (see the definitions at https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata-definitions/). Note that this errata report has two parts. One part states that "example.com should be client.example.com”. This is a duplicate of EID 4819, which is still in Reported state (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4819). Keep this in mind during your review. You may review the report at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7716 Please see https://www.rfc-editor.org/how-to-verify/ for further information on how to verify errata reports. Further information on errata can be found at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php Thank you. RFC Editor/rv > On Nov 29, 2023, at 8:56 AM, RFC Errata System > wrote: > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6749, > "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework". > > -- > You may review the report below and at: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7716 > > -- > Type: Editorial > Reported by: Alex Wilson > > Section: 4.2.2 > > Original Text > - > For example, the authorization server redirects the user-agent by > sending the following HTTP response (with extra line breaks for > display purposes only): > > HTTP/1.1 302 Found > Location: http://example.com/cb#access_token=2YotnFZFEjr1zCsicMWpAA > =xyz_type=example_in=3600 > > > Corrected Text > -- > For example, the authorization server redirects the user-agent by > sending the following HTTP response (with extra line breaks for > display purposes only): > > HTTP/1.1 302 Found > Location: http://client.example.com/cb?access_token=2YotnFZFEjr1zCsicMWpAA > =xyz_type=example_in=3600 > > > Notes > - > - Host example.com should be client.example.com to be consistent with other > examples. > - A hash is used for the query parameters when a question mark should have > been used. > > Instructions: > - > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". (If it is spam, it > will be removed shortly by the RFC Production Center.) Please > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party > will log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > > -- > RFC6749 (draft-ietf-oauth-v2-31) > -- > Title : The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework > Publication Date: October 2012 > Author(s) : D. Hardt, Ed. > Category: PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : Web Authorization Protocol > Area: Security > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG > ___ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
Re: [OAUTH-WG] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6749 (7715)
Hi Roman, We are unable to verify this erratum that the submitter marked as editorial. Please note that we have changed the “Type” of the following errata report to “Technical”. As Stream Approver, please review and set the Status and Type accordingly (see the definitions at https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata-definitions/). You may review the report at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7715 Please see https://www.rfc-editor.org/how-to-verify/ for further information on how to verify errata reports. Further information on errata can be found at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php Thank you. RFC Editor/rv > On Nov 29, 2023, at 8:51 AM, RFC Errata System > wrote: > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6749, > "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework". > > -- > You may review the report below and at: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7715 > > -- > Type: Editorial > Reported by: Alex Wilson > > Section: 4.2.2.1 > > Original Text > - > > HTTP/1.1 302 Found > Location: https://client.example.com/cb#error=access_denied=xyz > > Corrected Text > -- > > HTTP/1.1 302 Found > Location: https://client.example.com/cb?error=access_denied=xyz > > Notes > - > For query parameters, the hash should be a question mark. > > Instructions: > - > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". (If it is spam, it > will be removed shortly by the RFC Production Center.) Please > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party > will log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > > -- > RFC6749 (draft-ietf-oauth-v2-31) > -- > Title : The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework > Publication Date: October 2012 > Author(s) : D. Hardt, Ed. > Category: PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : Web Authorization Protocol > Area: Security > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG > ___ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
Re: [OAUTH-WG] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6749 (7716)
This errata should also be rejected for reasons similar to https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7715 - section 4.2.2 is about the implicit flow, which returns parameters in the fragment part of the URL, not query parameters. And that kind of consistency of hostname values in examples does not warrant an errata. On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 9:56 AM RFC Errata System wrote: > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6749, > "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework". > > -- > You may review the report below and at: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7716 > > -- > Type: Editorial > Reported by: Alex Wilson > > Section: 4.2.2 > > Original Text > - >For example, the authorization server redirects the user-agent by >sending the following HTTP response (with extra line breaks for >display purposes only): > > HTTP/1.1 302 Found > Location: http://example.com/cb#access_token=2YotnFZFEjr1zCsicMWpAA >=xyz_type=example_in=3600 > > > Corrected Text > -- >For example, the authorization server redirects the user-agent by >sending the following HTTP response (with extra line breaks for >display purposes only): > > HTTP/1.1 302 Found > Location: > http://client.example.com/cb?access_token=2YotnFZFEjr1zCsicMWpAA >=xyz_type=example_in=3600 > > > Notes > - > - Host example.com should be client.example.com to be consistent with > other examples. > - A hash is used for the query parameters when a question mark should have > been used. > > Instructions: > - > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". (If it is spam, it > will be removed shortly by the RFC Production Center.) Please > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party > will log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > > -- > RFC6749 (draft-ietf-oauth-v2-31) > -- > Title : The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework > Publication Date: October 2012 > Author(s) : D. Hardt, Ed. > Category: PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : Web Authorization Protocol > Area: Security > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG > > ___ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > -- _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
Re: [OAUTH-WG] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6749 (7715)
Agree with Aaron that this errata should be rejected. On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:57 AM Aaron Parecki wrote: > This errata should be rejected, as section 4.2.2.1 is about the implicit > flow, which returns parameters in the fragment part of the URL, not query > parameters. > > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 11:51 AM RFC Errata System < > rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> wrote: > >> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6749, >> "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework". >> >> -- >> You may review the report below and at: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7715 >> >> -- >> Type: Editorial >> Reported by: Alex Wilson >> >> Section: 4.2.2.1 >> >> Original Text >> - >> >>HTTP/1.1 302 Found >>Location: https://client.example.com/cb#error=access_denied=xyz >> >> Corrected Text >> -- >> >>HTTP/1.1 302 Found >>Location: https://client.example.com/cb?error=access_denied=xyz >> >> Notes >> - >> For query parameters, the hash should be a question mark. >> >> Instructions: >> - >> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". (If it is spam, it >> will be removed shortly by the RFC Production Center.) Please >> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or >> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party >> will log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. >> >> -- >> RFC6749 (draft-ietf-oauth-v2-31) >> -- >> Title : The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework >> Publication Date: October 2012 >> Author(s) : D. Hardt, Ed. >> Category: PROPOSED STANDARD >> Source : Web Authorization Protocol >> Area: Security >> Stream : IETF >> Verifying Party : IESG >> >> ___ >> OAuth mailing list >> OAuth@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >> > ___ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > -- _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
[OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-transaction-tokens-00.txt
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-oauth-transaction-tokens-00.txt is now available. It is a work item of the Web Authorization Protocol (OAUTH) WG of the IETF. Title: Transaction Tokens Authors: Atul Tulshibagwale George Fletcher Pieter Kasselman Name:draft-ietf-oauth-transaction-tokens-00.txt Pages: 19 Dates: 2023-11-29 Abstract: Transaction Tokens (Txn-Tokens) enable workloads in a trusted domain to ensure that user identity and authorization context of an external programmatic request, such as an API invocation, are preserved and available to all workloads that are invoked as part of processing such a request. Txn-Tokens also enable workloads within the trusted domain to optionally immutably assert to downstream workloads that they were invoked in the call chain of the request. The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-transaction-tokens/ There is also an HTMLized version available at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-oauth-transaction-tokens-00 Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at: rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts ___ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
Re: [OAUTH-WG] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6749 (7715)
This errata should be rejected, as section 4.2.2.1 is about the implicit flow, which returns parameters in the fragment part of the URL, not query parameters. On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 11:51 AM RFC Errata System < rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> wrote: > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6749, > "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework". > > -- > You may review the report below and at: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7715 > > -- > Type: Editorial > Reported by: Alex Wilson > > Section: 4.2.2.1 > > Original Text > - > >HTTP/1.1 302 Found >Location: https://client.example.com/cb#error=access_denied=xyz > > Corrected Text > -- > >HTTP/1.1 302 Found >Location: https://client.example.com/cb?error=access_denied=xyz > > Notes > - > For query parameters, the hash should be a question mark. > > Instructions: > - > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". (If it is spam, it > will be removed shortly by the RFC Production Center.) Please > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party > will log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > > -- > RFC6749 (draft-ietf-oauth-v2-31) > -- > Title : The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework > Publication Date: October 2012 > Author(s) : D. Hardt, Ed. > Category: PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : Web Authorization Protocol > Area: Security > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG > > ___ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > ___ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
[OAUTH-WG] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6749 (7716)
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6749, "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework". -- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7716 -- Type: Editorial Reported by: Alex Wilson Section: 4.2.2 Original Text - For example, the authorization server redirects the user-agent by sending the following HTTP response (with extra line breaks for display purposes only): HTTP/1.1 302 Found Location: http://example.com/cb#access_token=2YotnFZFEjr1zCsicMWpAA =xyz_type=example_in=3600 Corrected Text -- For example, the authorization server redirects the user-agent by sending the following HTTP response (with extra line breaks for display purposes only): HTTP/1.1 302 Found Location: http://client.example.com/cb?access_token=2YotnFZFEjr1zCsicMWpAA =xyz_type=example_in=3600 Notes - - Host example.com should be client.example.com to be consistent with other examples. - A hash is used for the query parameters when a question mark should have been used. Instructions: - This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". (If it is spam, it will be removed shortly by the RFC Production Center.) Please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party will log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -- RFC6749 (draft-ietf-oauth-v2-31) -- Title : The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework Publication Date: October 2012 Author(s) : D. Hardt, Ed. Category: PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Web Authorization Protocol Area: Security Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG ___ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
[OAUTH-WG] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6749 (7715)
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6749, "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework". -- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7715 -- Type: Editorial Reported by: Alex Wilson Section: 4.2.2.1 Original Text - HTTP/1.1 302 Found Location: https://client.example.com/cb#error=access_denied=xyz Corrected Text -- HTTP/1.1 302 Found Location: https://client.example.com/cb?error=access_denied=xyz Notes - For query parameters, the hash should be a question mark. Instructions: - This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". (If it is spam, it will be removed shortly by the RFC Production Center.) Please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party will log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -- RFC6749 (draft-ietf-oauth-v2-31) -- Title : The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework Publication Date: October 2012 Author(s) : D. Hardt, Ed. Category: PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Web Authorization Protocol Area: Security Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG ___ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
