You call this consensus? David Recordon was raising concerns about the proposal and Justin Richter agreed to registry alternatives. So no, this is not sufficient to make changes yet.
I do see a need to extend the error code set in case of extensions which modify the behavior of the authorization and token endpoints. Such additional error codes are completely dependent on the definition of additional parameters which we do register. I have received some negative feedback about using URIs for extension error codes (due to their inconsistency with the existing codes). I will post a modified proposal for error extensibility based on the requirement I presented earlier (as I have not seen any other valid requirements or use cases) before the next draft for discussion. EHL From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mike Jones Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 9:48 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Apparent consensus on OAuth Errors Registry People voted as follows in the poll I conducted on the OAuth Errors Registry: For A: Mike Jones Igor Faynberg Justin Richter Anthony Nadalin For D or C: Eran Hammer-Lahav William Mills Given that twice as many people indicated a preference for A as for any other option, that seems to indicate a consensus for A. Therefore Eran, when you update your draft, can you please proceed on that basis? Thanks, -- Mike
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
