Re: [OAUTH-WG] Error Registry Consensus Call

Anthony Nadalin <tonynad@microsoft.com> Tue, 08 May 2012 06:07 UTC

Return-Path: <tonynad@microsoft.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 C4EB721F85D8 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 May 2012 23:07:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.466
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.466 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, UNRESOLVED_TEMPLATE=3.132]
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 fT31Ic5Csx-c for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 May 2012 23:07:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from va3outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (va3ehsobe003.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.180.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EF4621F85C4 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 May 2012 23:07:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail98-va3-R.bigfish.com (10.7.14.235) by VA3EHSOBE003.bigfish.com (10.7.40.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Tue, 8 May 2012 06:07:31 +0000
Received: from mail98-va3 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail98-va3-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12E06360295 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 May 2012 06:07:31 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.8; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:TK5EX14HUBC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -26
X-BigFish: VS-26(zzbb2dI9371I936eKc85fh14ffI98dKzz1202h1082kzz1033IL8275bh8275dhz2fh2a8h683h839hd25h)
Received-SPF: pass (mail98-va3: domain of microsoft.com designates 131.107.125.8 as permitted sender) client-ip=131.107.125.8; envelope-from=tonynad@microsoft.com; helo=TK5EX14HUBC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ; icrosoft.com ;
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report-Untrusted: CIP:157.56.240.21; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); (null); H:BL2PRD0310HT005.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; R:internal; EFV:INT
Received: from mail98-va3 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail98-va3 (MessageSwitch) id 1336457249899613_19628; Tue, 8 May 2012 06:07:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from VA3EHSMHS033.bigfish.com (unknown [10.7.14.249]) by mail98-va3.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEED6C0046 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 May 2012 06:07:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from TK5EX14HUBC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (131.107.125.8) by VA3EHSMHS033.bigfish.com (10.7.99.43) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Tue, 8 May 2012 06:07:29 +0000
Received: from am1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (157.54.51.114) by mail.microsoft.com (157.54.80.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.298.5; Tue, 8 May 2012 06:07:41 +0000
Received: from mail27-am1-R.bigfish.com (10.3.201.238) by AM1EHSOBE002.bigfish.com (10.3.204.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Tue, 8 May 2012 06:07:25 +0000
Received: from mail27-am1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail27-am1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A63B62601EB for <oauth@ietf.org.FOPE.CONNECTOR.OVERRIDE>; Tue, 8 May 2012 06:07:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail27-am1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail27-am1 (MessageSwitch) id 13364572444333_24328; Tue, 8 May 2012 06:07:24 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from AM1EHSMHS017.bigfish.com (unknown [10.3.201.235]) by mail27-am1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F06811E00E1; Tue, 8 May 2012 06:07:23 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from BL2PRD0310HT005.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (157.56.240.21) by AM1EHSMHS017.bigfish.com (10.3.207.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Tue, 8 May 2012 06:07:22 +0000
Received: from BL2PRD0310MB362.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.10.132]) by BL2PRD0310HT005.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.255.97.40]) with mapi id 14.16.0152.000; Tue, 8 May 2012 06:07:34 +0000
From: Anthony Nadalin <tonynad@microsoft.com>
To: George Fletcher <gffletch@aol.com>, Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] Error Registry Consensus Call
Thread-Index: AQHNLKORGJTg9cHvyEWO6tIJ4TMRrZa+9n+AgAAKNYCAAGercA==
Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 06:07:33 +0000
Message-ID: <B26C1EF377CB694EAB6BDDC8E624B6E740208DF6@BL2PRD0310MB362.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <53E17703-C3BD-48A1-8CB6-BD0D3795DD77@gmx.net> <054E3D0C-8AFC-4585-8ED3-14348E25C4D0@ve7jtb.com> <4FA86121.80302@aol.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FA86121.80302@aol.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [195.22.91.6]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B26C1EF377CB694EAB6BDDC8E624B6E740208DF6BL2PRD0310MB362_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OrganizationHeadersPreserved: BL2PRD0310HT005.namprd03.prod.outlook.com
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%59$Dn%AOL.COM$RO%2$TLS%6$FQDN%131.107.125.5$TlsDn%
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%59$Dn%GMX.NET$RO%2$TLS%6$FQDN%131.107.125.5$TlsDn%
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%59$Dn%IETF.ORG$RO%2$TLS%6$FQDN%131.107.125.5$TlsDn%
X-CrossPremisesHeadersPromoted: TK5EX14HUBC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com
X-CrossPremisesHeadersFiltered: TK5EX14HUBC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com
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: Tue, 08 May 2012 06:07:46 -0000

Agree on a single registry

From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of George Fletcher
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 4:56 PM
To: Hannes Tschofenig
Cc: oauth@ietf.org WG
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Error Registry Consensus Call

I agree that one registry is desired!

On 5/7/12 7:19 PM, John Bradley wrote:

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<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth






_______________________________________________

OAuth mailing list

OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth