-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
chore: Add requirement for RFC8707 #734
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.
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
Conversation
Co-authored-by: Aaron Parecki <aaron@parecki.com>
| [RFC 8707 Section 2](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8707.html#section-2) and aligns with the `resource` parameter in | ||
| [RFC 9728](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9728). This URI: | ||
|
|
||
| 1. **MUST** be an absolute URI, as specified by [Section 4.3 of RFC 3986](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3986#section-4.3). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do we need to list these or should we just refer to RFC 8707.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@dsp-ant IMO these are helpful to list explicitly as guidance for implementers.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I find the examples useful, this list slightly less so since I ended up bringing up 8707 to see if there was a diff. I'm inclined to remove it to keep it brief.
pcarleton
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
overall lgtm.
left a few optional tweaks.
| [RFC 8707 Section 2](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8707.html#section-2) and aligns with the `resource` parameter in | ||
| [RFC 9728](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9728). This URI: | ||
|
|
||
| 1. **MUST** be an absolute URI, as specified by [Section 4.3 of RFC 3986](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3986#section-4.3). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I find the examples useful, this list slightly less so since I ended up bringing up 8707 to see if there was a diff. I'm inclined to remove it to keep it brief.
| - `https://mcp.example.com` | ||
| - `https://mcp.example.com:8443` | ||
| - `https://mcp.example.com/server` (when path component is necessary to identify individual MCP server) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
| - `https://mcp.example.com` | |
| - `https://mcp.example.com:8443` | |
| - `https://mcp.example.com/server` (when path component is necessary to identify individual MCP server) | |
| - `https://mcp.example.com/mcp` | |
| - `https://mcp.example.com` | |
| - `https://mcp.example.com:8443` | |
| - `https://mcp.example.com/server/mcp` (when path component is necessary to identify individual MCP server) |
wydt about this? I want to make it clear that passing the "server URL" is completely valid, like the one people would likely pass into a client.
|
Requiring the client to pass the See #284 (comment)) and oauth-wg/oauth-v2-1#215 |
Related to #544