Re: [OAUTH-WG] Error Registry Consensus Call

William Mills <> Mon, 07 May 2012 23:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E734D21F8543 for <>; Mon, 7 May 2012 16:39:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -16.38
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.38 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.641, BAYES_20=-0.74, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_WHITELIST=-15]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id caNVALa4Ad-N for <>; Mon, 7 May 2012 16:39:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id 6D16621F84D5 for <>; Mon, 7 May 2012 16:39:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 07 May 2012 23:39:42 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 07 May 2012 23:39:42 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 07 May 2012 23:39:42 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
Received: (qmail 66830 invoked by uid 60001); 7 May 2012 23:39:42 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=ginc1024; t=1336433982; bh=K+zc8YsX/QFYHyM4FFcd+Wch65cRosjE/IZBxK+CINI=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-RocketYMMF:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=UGMl7mu+OBFWoVBjqnzfd0U6M9iXe6T847Ks4pUW0VryIfOqOfdmFgmmszIhyDeEmZrhDsy5OcQ88/Gelc2Y7RPVcjzdHunOLNxT7G90VqW1ge1e80aeP0N9theshJGcaj8fotUpysJbpvrS1r2J6U96rNvy4JGEe2csx1Kq4io=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=ginc1024;; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-RocketYMMF:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=RNWmw2R6EhVpIXS4wJG+LBMD6W9vttHypJtDNxBoePR/39uneOObadsQN+P0tj9kPWj7DUsAryzXW795SZBN6qHQKV3TZBWqhu9SIMV6hzfcAxRcmemPnfyf8Cm1Y7xkb+KIeGfs6bx0ky7O/O9wTcgZCWAsADqNuv5KUtmDS70=;
X-YMail-OSG: snEz_iQVM1kKyItUPlqwBU90neOsAprN7tr6XzegCd1PskF DddvJGpvEaHw3nD.SJVJb7Cx6xAh52ol3zOG6TdgBN9Fd_GZJiX_hOmKn_ah bbU8CCedv5IxD8kR2QbyqQwFDK9xk6flkld4nb8iyhDZkS7wcksBH3uKyam6 6V3kc1cSytLk57pmUFz1eVgaWq15zI7JCyL0eUJmwmYfO2CXZUcrXtLrk4SA y8YHZ1TCozDJ7fmaav8zCH1zQy5GsQ3Xpn.NV.UmrIAOBJzHoXIhUbUJbRRK gqOlnmz1uMFfLMl6G8X1rf9zpU61DJ3tnLRgObcUUYvL9Sj46dqmowrGvMP8 e.mwXgVWKUdOt8BvJB1qHhcpiGjIWh1iLCmRX0Knds8ozzbZkBHC8KkjGzXv g8Mx9x7Tj9y1L9qmCtgGKoRfKrGmqEw3_CK2n.YTLfrV6ye0ejA--
Received: from [] by via HTTP; Mon, 07 May 2012 16:39:41 PDT
X-RocketYMMF: william_john_mills
X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/
References: <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 16:39:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Mills <>
To: Hannes Tschofenig <>, " WG" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="258328648-808894034-1336433981=:39686"
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Error Registry Consensus Call
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: William Mills <>
List-Id: OAUTH WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 23:39:50 -0000

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.


> From: Hannes Tschofenig <>
>To: " WG" <> 
>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. 
>Hannes & Derek
>OAuth mailing list