Re: [OAUTH-WG] Section 7.2

[Mike Jones <[e-mail]>]

That sounds fine to me.  If you want to take a stab at proposed text, have at it!

-- Mike

________________________________
From: Eran Hammer
Sent: 6/14/2012 2:59 PM
To: [e-mail] WG ([e-mail])
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Section 7.2

One simple solution is to define the new error location as an opt-in registry for oauth-centric token authentication methods. Instead of requiring new schemes to use it and deal with all the confusing qualifications, just narrowly define the new registry as a service for new token authentication methods seeking to share a common error representation format with the Bearer and other schemes. This removes the explicit 'error' parameter name issue, as well as any other restrictions or limitations. It also removes the MUST.

IOW, the new text will establish a common registry for sharing error codes across oauth-centric token authentication schemes and can recommend that such schemes opt into the registry if they return error status beyong HTTP codes. Such a resolution will be simple to explain and will make the registry intentions very clear and straigh forward.

If this is acceptable, I can propose new text for 7.2 based on the latest draft.

Just an idea.

EH