FRom what I can see in a similar discussion Eran pointed out that this is a direct communication, communication between the client and token endpoint.
Server Error and temporarily unavailable are not OAuth specific and are handled by existing HTTP error codes. I don't see a need for a change. Unless something else dramatic comes up I would like to see draft 29 go to the RFC editor. (Though one person mentioned to me that 30 is a nicer number:) John B. On 2012-07-12, at 8:09 PM, Dick Hardt wrote: > Charles > > Thanks for the suggestion. I just did publish a new draft that included a > number of items that had been discussed and I would like to get some feedback > on your suggestion before incorporating it (or not). > > Does anyone have feedback on the change below? (+/-) > > -- Dick > > On Jul 12, 2012, at 1:45 PM, Honton, Charles wrote: > >> E. Hammer, D. Recordon, D. Hardt, et.al, >> >> I'm looking at draft 28 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-v2-28). >> >> In Section 5.2 the error code should probably include: >> >> server_error >> The authorization server encountered an unexpected >> condition which prevented it from fulfilling the request. >> temporarily_unavailable >> The authorization server is currently unable to handle >> the request due to a temporary overloading or maintenance >> of the server. >> >> >> Regards, >> chas >> > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
