I'm thinking about what the appropriate updates to 7.2 are. Your question
about "What if the parameter is named 'err' rather than 'error'?" is a fair
one, for instance. I'll also target proposed updates to that for Monday.
As to the question of one OAuth Errors registry versus four, as I suspect you
saw, I've asked Hannes to withdraw his suggestion to split the one registry
into four. Hopefully that can be resolved soon too.
-- Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Eran Hammer [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 2:22 PM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: On the OAuth Core Spec
Sounds good.
Any progress on a revised 7.2? I'd like to get clarity on that so we can agree
on new text and close the issue along with the ABNF.
EH
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Jones [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 2:18 PM
> To: Eran Hammer
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: On the OAuth Core Spec
>
> FYI, Eran, I'm going to hold off sending you proposed updated ABNF
> text for a few more days to let the discussions continue and consensus
> to build. I'm currently mentally targeting sending proposed draft updates
> Monday.
>
> Best wishes,
> -- Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
> Of Eran Hammer
> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 11:53 AM
> To: Derek Atkins
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] On the OAuth Core Spec
>
> Derek - Thank you for this note. It is very much appreacited.
>
> > From: Derek Atkins [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 10:28 AM
>
> > Having said that, are you still willing and able to be the editor of
> > this draft and see it to its conclusion and publication?
>
> Yes.
>
> > If so, we will need to get another
> > draft out by this Friday (June 15), and I suspect we'll need another
> > draft that solves the encoding issue (brought up by the ABNF
> > exercise), targeting Friday, June 29th. Do you think you can make
> > these target dates (assuming that there is text for you to apply to
> > the
> draft)?
>
> There are two main open issues I'm aware of:
>
> 1. Error registry text
>
> * The text provided by Mike Jones for section 7.2 is unlcear. I have
> provided feedback on the list and am waiting to hear back from Mike (or
> anyone else).
> Once I understand the actual intention of the new normative language,
> I will rework the text to reflect those changes. While I have strong
> objections to the error code registry in genreal, once decided, my
> only goal is to ensure the text is clear, complete, and reflects
> working group consensus. I do not have strong interest in how the
> working group resolves the rules around the registry as long as they are
> clear and practical. The current text for 7.2 is not.
>
> * In the consensus call for the error registry, Hannes requested (or
> suggested, it wasn't clear given the context) that the registry be
> implemented by IANA using separate tables. This requires prose changes
> to instruct IANA as such. Without changes, IANA will create a single
> table which is not what was requested. I have not seen much discussion
> on this. I am waiting for the chairs to clarify this and for someone
> to provide text if this is still the case (I have sent multiple emails on
> this to the list).
>
> 2. ABNF
>
> * Mike Jones is doing solid work progressing the ABNF forward with the
> guidance of Julian. I trust Julian blindly to guide the text to a
> successful conculsion and the working group seems enaged. As soon as
> new text is available, I will incorporate and publish. If a schedule
> conflict arises in which I am unable to push the ABNF changes, I have
> no objections to Mike Jones pushing a new draft with only ABNF related
> change after quick coordination (Mike can submit using my contact and I'll
> approve it within a few hours).
>
> I also have a short list of nits and typos reported to the list and me
> directly over the past few weeks which are all insignificant to list.
>
> I am available to publish another draft on or by 6/14, and again on or
> by 6/27 (or 6/30 after my travel). I will be travelling on the exact
> dates listed. I am hoping that these dates are flexible within a few
> days range. In order for me to publish a new draft by 6/14, I will
> need the changes a day before to prepare. If the changes are ABNF
> only, I can work with Mike Jones to arrange it without putting my
> travel restriction in the way. I need the chairs to clarify what is
> expected in each of these drafts and how they seek to resolve the issues
> around item #1 above to continue.
>
> Again, thanks for the note.
>
> EH
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
