Updates to error handling #135
Merged
+8
−3
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
tplooker
approved these changes
Jul 13, 2025
tplooker
reviewed
Jul 13, 2025
tplooker
reviewed
Jul 13, 2025
|
Approved, but then had a couple of suggestions to add. |
c2bo
approved these changes
Jul 30, 2025
|
Supersedes #132 |
paulbastian
reviewed
Aug 5, 2025
There was a problem hiding this comment.
approved., history missing and let's not forget to add Micha to acknowledgments from #132
paulbastian
approved these changes
Aug 5, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Additional to #131 this updates the error section a bit more since it is referenced from later Token and PAR endpoint sections and linking to RFC6750 error handling is just not right then.
Making
use_attestation_challengea MUST use when challenge validations fail just makes sense and having to have it accompanied byOAuth-Client-Attestation-Challengeas well. I don't mind defininginvalid_client_attestationbut only as a MAY because on the AS authenticated endpoints the convention is already invalid_client for client authentication failures, for the RS responses it's probably fine.closes #131