Re: [OAUTH-WG] Error Registry Consensus Call

John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> Mon, 07 May 2012 23:20 UTC

Return-Path: <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.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 12B0721F84F3 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 May 2012 16:20:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.526
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.526 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.073, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 O6mtUhXU2PBT for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 May 2012 16:20:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18E4121F84EA for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 May 2012 16:20:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yenq13 with SMTP id q13so1143067yen.31 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 07 May 2012 16:20:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to:x-mailer:x-gm-message-state; bh=Qz5BmPQgpqrdqfC8yzrMHtbXMZ6XTXnZ/kWUAdxcYk4=; b=gKfmT918bWgvd5sQwEJq4fUXAdHPqF+z0qIJQUjcnlbWviOVzjGq+0vUYRO7HZLiEx Bbxi5u+CFEaQo1AHc4lkqAVhVU76kw0EmC6byeRBksA9mzO0J2Lw9+BME3yXUn4iXyZq wMVIHwHm5GLpJ+8fTSo2pQP+WtX5/t43isyHoRO99pisfLLynyMtnATKC+qWKzh3l2XU b4nOVNGpVPz7AZThg/4QVUDdV4JtmkBTUMCObwteTnUxfP1Nxg+Vn5wsm15LnllwXAZ9 8fBQ9o28WB9gZ1qYnWbQ7FHu6rhXFWcCJ7Ri6qBoFFnSFVoZk0Rw7CAiLEHc1TLDpMil 8XPQ==
Received: by 10.236.190.70 with SMTP id d46mr21994394yhn.90.1336432809383; Mon, 07 May 2012 16:20:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.213] (190-20-11-19.baf.movistar.cl. [190.20.11.19]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u2sm89627335yhe.8.2012.05.07.16.20.01 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 07 May 2012 16:20:08 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_CF5F4C55-0D6D-4A3F-AC63-93A4E37F1CA4"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1
From: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
In-Reply-To: <53E17703-C3BD-48A1-8CB6-BD0D3795DD77@gmx.net>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 19:19:45 -0400
Message-Id: <054E3D0C-8AFC-4585-8ED3-14348E25C4D0@ve7jtb.com>
References: <53E17703-C3BD-48A1-8CB6-BD0D3795DD77@gmx.net>
To: Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlC3sprFRprM8RxO5ixHzLLj+DooV4M/JIGwapolR5Xr+Hj5dmw1htPUFOOd+SUo2UVxVYy
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org WG" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Error Registry Consensus Call
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: Mon, 07 May 2012 23:20:16 -0000

b)  Unless we remove the OAuth specific errors from bearer it should be in  oath-v2.   

One registry is preferable. 

John B.
On 2012-05-07, at 6:48 PM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:

> Hi all, 
> 
> there is an open issue concerning draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-19 that may impact draft-ietf-oauth-v2-26 (depending on it's resolution) and we would like to get feedback from the working group about it. 
> 
> Here is the issue: When a client makes an access to a protected resources then things may go wrong and an error may be returned in response. draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer talks about this behavior. 
> 
> That's great but these error codes need to be registered somewhere. Note that the registry can be created in one document while the values can be registered by many documents. 
> 
> So, where should the registry be?
> 
> There are two choices. 
> 
> a) A new OAuth errors registry goes into draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer.
> 
> b) draft-ietf-oauth-v2 expands the scope of the existing OAuth Errors registry to encompass errors returned from resource servers.
> 
> Currently, draft-ietf-oauth-v2 creates registries for error codes only for the exchanges from A-to-D (symbols used from Figure 1 of draft-ietf-oauth-v2), but excludes registration of errors from flows E-F.
> 
> We must create a registry for error codes from flows E-F.  In which document do we want to create this registry?
> 
> So, give us your feedback whether you have a preference by the end of the week. 
> 
> Ciao
> Hannes & Derek
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth