Thanks, Hannes. I believe that leaves the particulars of the ABNF and possible
encoding of client_id values containing colon for use with HTTP Basic as the
only open issues for Core.
-- Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 11:27 AM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: Hannes Tschofenig; [email protected] WG
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Error Registry: Conclusion
Hi Mike,
thanks for raising this issue.
I am fine with the currently proposed approach. I just had a personal
preference for separate tables for readability purposes -- not a big issue.
Ciao
Hannes
On Jun 15, 2012, at 12:40 AM, Mike Jones wrote:
> Hi Hannes,
>
> You stated a preference for separate registries below, but that was a larger
> change to the OAuth Core spec than the current draft, which added a fourth
> error usage location "resource access error response" to the registry. To my
> knowledge, the consensus call didn't ask people to express a preference
> between having four separate OAuth Errors registries versus one OAuth Errors
> registry allowing any combination of a set of four usage locations to be
> specified.
>
> Given that the two choices are completely equivalent, and we had previously
> established the single OAuth Errors registry with three possible usage
> locations, extending it to a fourth seemed to be both more natural and easier
> for people to understand.
>
> Therefore, I'd like to ask you to withdraw your suggestion and allow the
> existing structure of the OAuth Errors registry to remain.
>
> Thank you,
> -- Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> Hannes Tschofenig
> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 2:27 PM
> To: [email protected] WG
> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Error Registry: Conclusion
>
> Hi all,
>
> on May 8th we called for consensus on an open issue regarding the location of
> the error registry. Here is the call for comments:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg08952.html.
>
> Thank you all for the feedback. The consensus is to create the registry in
> the core document.
>
> Section 11.4.1 already sort-of creates sub-registries to illustrate where the
> different errors can be used. This is needed since some of the errors may
> only appear in certain error responses. Hence, we need add another one to
> this list (suggestion: 'resource access error response'). In fact, I would
> prefer IANA to create separate tables for each of these sub-registries to
> avoid confusion for the reader (instead of putting everything into a single
> table).
>
> We believe that these changes are really minor and address IESG feedback.
>
> Ciao
> Hannes & Derek
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
>
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
