On 5/20/2015 1:37 PM, David Waite wrote:
On May 16, 2015, at 1:43 AM, Patrick Gansterer <par...@paroga.com> wrote:
"OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration Protocol” [1] is nearly finished and
provides the possibility to register additional “Client Metadata”.
OAuth 2.0 does not define any matching algorithm for the redirect_uris. The
latest information on that topic I could find is [1], which is 5 years old. Is
there any more recent discussion about it?
I’d suggest to add an OPTIONAL “redirect_uris_matching_method” client metadata.
Possible valid values could be:
* “exact”: The “redirect_uri" provided in a redirect-based flow must match
exactly one of of the provided strings in the “redirect_uris” array.
* “prefix”: The "redirect_uri" must begin with one of the “redirect_uris”. (e.g.
"http://example.com/path/subpath” would be valid with [“http://example.com/path/“,
“http://example.com/otherpath/”])
* “regex”: The provided “redirect_uris” are threatened as regular expressions,
which the “redirect_uri” will be matched against. (e.g.
“http://subdomain.example.com/path5/“ would be valid with
[“^http:\\/\\/[a-z]+\\.example\\.com\\/path\\d+\\/“]
I don’t know if this is appropriate. For example, If a server is unwilling to
support arbitrary regex matching, how would a client which required this be
able to register dynamically? Or conversely: if a client did not require regex
matching, why would they request this from a server?
If a client requests regex or prefix, it was built to rely on these to work. If
some set of servers choose not to support regex or prefix for scope or security
reasons, this hurts interoperability from the perspective of dynamic
registration. And we already have a workaround - instead make your client rely
on the state parameter.
A client doing code or implicit should specify exact return URLs in their
registration, and if they need to send the user someplace else after
authentication it should be represented to the client by their state param.
Nice workaround, but you are then making the client more difficult to
implement and the state param larger and more complex. prefix matching
seems like it would be a very common thing that an auth server supports
and clients would want to have.
--
Bill Burke
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
http://bill.burkecentral.com
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
