On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 11:07 AM, John Bradley <[email protected]> wrote: > It is registered in the IANA registry > http://www.iana.org/assignments/oauth-parameters/oauth-parameters.xhtml > > It is properly specified as a parameter in RFC6749 > > For some reason in the doc it is not properly listed in the IANA actions. I > would need to go back through the diffs, perhaps it disappeared after the > IANA actions and before the RFC editors final draft. > > It is a bit strange, however the IANA registry is authoritative, I don’t know > that a missing IANA instruction is worth making a big deal over at this point. > > If we update the doc we could add that back in, as apparently some people > look at that list rather than the registry.
Thanks, John. I should have looked at the registry! I'll mark this as verified and note that it is already in the registry. I'll put it down as editorial since the registry is normative. Thanks! Kathleen > > John B. > >> On Dec 8, 2015, at 12:47 PM, Kathleen Moriarty >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I'm inclined to reject the following errata on 2 counts: >> >> error_description is already included int he registry and adding a new >> entry involves a 'specification required' and a review period on the >> email list for that registry. >> >> Should there be a specification for this? It looks the same as >> error_description to me, but maybe I'm missing something? >> >> Errata description: >> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg12519.html >> >> Section of OAuth 2.0 referenced: >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749#section-11.2.2 >> >> -- >> >> Best regards, >> Kathleen >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OAuth mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > -- Best regards, Kathleen _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
