Skip to content

Catalog: add the RFC 9449 multi-header invalid_dpop_proof carve-out #2

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
RobertoIskandarani wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Catalog: add the RFC 9449 multi-header invalid_dpop_proof carve-out #2

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
8 changes: 7 additions & 1 deletion oauth-sdk-conformance-catalog.yaml
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -2083,6 +2083,7 @@ cases:
standard_refs:
- "RFC6750"
- "RFC9068"
- "RFC9449"
surface: "sdk-verifier.error-response"
priority: "high"
requirement_summary: "RFC 9068 §4 requires resource servers to handle errors as described in RFC 6750 §3.1. The SDK MUST\
Expand All @@ -2102,13 +2103,18 @@ cases:
- error_type: "dpop_error"
expected_error_code: "invalid_token"
expected_scheme: "DPoP"
- error_type: "dpop_multi_header"
expected_error_code: "invalid_dpop_proof"
expected_scheme: "DPoP"
stimulus:
operation: "www_authenticate(error)"
expected:
outcome: "accept"
www_authenticate_format: "<scheme> error=\"<error_code>\", error_description=\"<message>\""
rationale: "RFC 9068 §4 delegates error handling to RFC 6750 §3 which mandates specific error codes in WWW-Authenticate\
\ challenges. Without an SDK helper, every adapter must reimplement this mapping, risking inconsistency."
\ challenges. Without an SDK helper, every adapter must reimplement this mapping, risking inconsistency. The RFC 9449\
\ §4.3 multi-header rejection is the one DPoP carve-out: §7.1 prescribes invalid_dpop_proof for it, while the other\
\ DPoP proof failures stay on invalid_token."
- id: "rfc9728-prm-dpop-fields-should-be-advertised-when-dpop-is-supported"
title: "PRM should advertise DPoP signing algorithms and binding requirement when DPoP is configured"
standard_refs:
Expand Down
Loading