Re: [OAUTH-WG] Seeking Clarification: Potential Ambiguity in Specification

SM <sm@resistor.net> Tue, 10 January 2012 18:57 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7AF021F8763 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 10:57:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OlsY6085C55k for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 10:57:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B40FF21F86EC for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 10:57:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0AIvdHH006431 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 10:57:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1326221863; i=@resistor.net; bh=aaIcmOAr9vH44IIxxrGyH+v/6abKxxxbFXv8Iz3MSlI=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=LEm2nBM9FK6jEZIoqsS/7PDZQGihBWdn/mg2ledpMYjCInuMOsItfo7XTiNKzJZUK 0etyQRBj3byu3mJ8XmNaVpcmWI/sZOry81rYGJt/kpMuDjQH1xd8iCARBmS73kbpwO 6xSs9hVe6eL5uzgrZrgGFTH9DhIWHzauhWT7zQjo=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110104038.099f1ba8@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 10:56:37 -0800
To: oauth@ietf.org
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <1326215997.44445.YahooMailNeo@web31816.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <CAG+j4TrQGwiDj01huDgfEy+02b4=tTDYifiXcvhDHrw3i32-6Q@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120109070921.0aec8d00@resistor.net> <CAG+j4TrFoxvMMK_Bx=0e1qFLjUmKKaEmJD6hBnR06H6Fm75xfw@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120109153323.0ab3bf80@resistor.net> <CAG+j4TpuO0N7n9xxB=3mh7EZhsjXDtB2DPa0S8BBJmhV_mv4Xw@mail.gmail.com> <1326156786.88572.YahooMailNeo@web31812.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <CAG+j4TrUGtua8umh+GqJM_i6OeZrwHy7NwoGK1dTYGpHBuuV2Q@mail.gmail.com> <1326160314.71861.YahooMailNeo@web31806.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <CAG+j4TrkXE_N6T35LaApswKJMRzNmBYbB_CnqUi37s6sK5nQAw@mail.gmail.com> <1326162276.40306.YahooMailNeo@web31811.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <CAG+j4TqhGi_0Z=C7gPbxAx6L7DV-NeLCewYyc4T-SbfdfWR=GA@mail.gmail.com> <1326215997.44445.YahooMailNeo@web31816.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Seeking Clarification: Potential Ambiguity in Specification
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth>
List-Post: <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 18:57:49 -0000

At 09:19 10-01-2012, William Mills wrote:
>That does clear it up!  If the implementation returns a proper error 
>when the scope is omitted then it will be in conformance.  Sending 
>an error result for the empty scope is valid.

Yes.

It is not possible to get a clear view of the specs if the discussion 
about "ambiguity" relies on the meaning of the word "OPTIONAL" 
only.  If there is a problem, then clarifying text could be used to 
fix it instead of changing the requirements.

Regards,
-sm