IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Error Registry: Conclusion

William Mills <wmills@yahoo-inc.com> Thu, 14 June 2012 21:48 UTC

Return-Path: <wmills@yahoo-inc.com>
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 07DF521F85DD for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 14:48:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.514
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.514 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.085, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_DEF_WHITELIST=-15]
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 dqaJuI1lg7xv for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 14:48:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nm5-vm0.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com (nm5-vm0.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com [98.139.213.150]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 17B8F21F85DB for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 14:48:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [98.139.215.141] by nm5.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 Jun 2012 21:48:09 -0000
Received: from [98.139.212.198] by tm12.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 Jun 2012 21:48:09 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1007.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 Jun 2012 21:48:09 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 234598.56382.bm@omp1007.mail.bf1.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 35361 invoked by uid 60001); 14 Jun 2012 21:48:08 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo-inc.com; s=ginc1024; t=1339710488; bh=oZLcgloBbAQ4Gd9/CZ7+wVg3uYyYBXH3CdMFLqeXAwA=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-RocketYMMF:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=gABTBuFjse4aOM85zqb2Kkrk0S5ob9yQgXCB0im82LxgoStfxy5IDlvcOz9cLt0iAP3crTTH8gdsrjbQX6YgrJfBajje7VdLDa5+vD69xCk1mhyfOOgHMRAoerFYyb7z7wkbswWK4me7UyAxvnMBcuhvirfCELuosjmrdt6Hvpw=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=ginc1024; d=yahoo-inc.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-RocketYMMF:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=lSZ39Bx8ceKE4r3uFlRCwI8jmCDz8v74XChf8Y0dxUWuxQrZ/6oaDYVwhlH6TiFkvR5n0w8zcY9geJl0aaDfbta3DIQdnRUDay0nZbT1tm3UCEQEoN1xz1nipoy1lpENzSQ96ZcH6lGFqT88M4pvFzZ3hPPfsCS/kzWOPMV83eQ=;
X-YMail-OSG: Iw3XtnkVM1nCG0LGyV_TIxlIRWjqQP0mTV9h0H12AMIP9Af QjClgo8WzOpbSip5Fsy7ogfkZ_CIUp6LG1g5GU16aZ3xMU1YWrLDqcSv2wpi 5Hf9eVljCqBkd74wkjux9nng5rI32fVkttEY795f5tYsT_gIuF_IphJO.vQY 2_N257nvKrEYsEk_3UHNZgvw2ZVKV3EpHyDNWonQ8YICls2cHHhyUyS6allS fb2nUUNcl9FUYUybEcxkXmbiXFTZ7.zGqufP14XLIMc4Ipe6gwU4dTSaXl.8 Awh4KSeDGxlqUzHdBPdma7I87I_x5twmeb7JTO6KKkU0CN.q1SNloatuOvFT UR7W6zvUvJGfZu_tm_1DyLDEVADv3sI7eC8RjIXO7pE4e2aPtFiAX6N2NKMm qifWu0eArOeSm6XSz_loB0wqYQccpkDjnqUW5hkuD_HHPhGbpUw--
Received: from [209.131.62.115] by web31813.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 14:48:07 PDT
X-RocketYMMF: william_john_mills
X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.120.356233
References: <42B29A82-D8BA-40B8-9569-B209CBBBC3B7@gmx.net> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B1680429673943665393AB@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <1339710487.34288.YahooMailNeo@web31813.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 14:48:07 -0700
From: William Mills <wmills@yahoo-inc.com>
To: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>, Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>
In-Reply-To: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B1680429673943665393AB@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org WG" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Error Registry: Conclusion
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: William Mills <wmills@yahoo-inc.com>
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: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:48:12 -0000

We might be able to combine these, but to me it really does make sense to have one registry for OAuth 2 core extensions to the frameowrk and one for the auth profiles.  The downside of this would be duplication between the two.  If we think there will be significant overlap then I think they should be merged, if they are mostly distinct then I would somewhat prefer separate registries but I can live with either.

My tuppence.

-bill



----- Original Message -----
> From: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
> To: Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>
> Cc: "oauth@ietf.org WG" <oauth@ietf.org>
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 2:40 PM
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Error Registry: Conclusion
> 
> 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: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hannes 
> Tschofenig
> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 2:27 PM
> To: oauth@ietf.org 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
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email