Re: [OAUTH-WG] Error Registry Consensus Call

[William Mills <[e-mail]>]

I am in favor of making it part of the base Oauth 2 spec, rather than defining this in a single token draft.  It seems something that SHOULD be part of the framework.

There's a 3rd option which would be to have a separate doc, but that seems a kludge.

-bill




>________________________________
> From: Hannes Tschofenig <[e-mail]>
>To: "[e-mail] WG" <[e-mail]> 
>Sent: Monday, May 7, 2012 3:48 PM
>Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Error Registry Consensus Call
> 
>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
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
>
>