Re: [OAUTH-WG] ABNF Re: Error Encoding: Conclusion

[William Mills <[e-mail]>]

So are you saying that 


1) I got your syntax right in the second one?
2) You like your syntax and don't want to limit it to a leading ALPHA?

-bill




>________________________________
> From: Mike Jones <[e-mail]>
>To: William Mills <[e-mail]>; Eran Hammer <[e-mail]>; Hannes Tschofenig <[e-mail]> 
>Cc: "[e-mail] WG" <[e-mail]> 
>Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 9:45 PM
>Subject: RE: ABNF Re: [OAUTH-WG] Error Encoding: Conclusion
> 
>
> 
>Your proposal differs both from what’s in Bearer and what’s in Core at present.  By using the syntax restrictions from Bearer (which were already significantly discussed by the WG) in Core, developers have consistent rules, which was the point of the DISCUSS.
> 
>I don’t believe that changing both sets of syntax restrictions was on the table at this point based upon the DISCUSS (but of course, the working group can still obviously do anything that there’s clear consensus to do). 
> 
>                                                            My two cents worth…
>                                                            -- Mike
> 
>From:William Mills [mailto:[e-mail]] 
>Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 9:31 PM
>To: Eran Hammer; Mike Jones; Hannes Tschofenig
>Cc: [e-mail] WG
>Subject: ABNF Re: [OAUTH-WG] Error Encoding: Conclusion
> 
>The current OAuth core spec section 8.5 has:
>     error-code   = ALPHA *error-char
>     error-char   = "-" / "." / "_" / DIGIT / ALPHA
>
>Mike's proposal would nominally be:
>
>     error-code   = *error-char
>     error-char   = %x20-21 / %x23-5B / %x5D-7E
>
>This is the set of ASCII characters from SPACE to '~' excluding '\' and '"'.  I'm not 
>in love with that, but it's clear.  I'd prefer:
>
>     error-code   = ALPHA *error-char
>     error-char   = %x20-21 / %x23-5B / %x5D-7E
>
>-bill
> 
> 
>>
>>________________________________
>> 
>>From:Eran Hammer <[e-mail]>
>>To: Mike Jones <[e-mail]>; Hannes Tschofenig <[e-mail]> 
>>Cc: "[e-mail] WG" <[e-mail]> 
>>Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 7:47 PM
>>Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Error Encoding: Conclusion
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Mike Jones [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>> Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 1:53 PM
>>> To: Eran Hammer; Hannes Tschofenig
>>> Cc: [e-mail] WG
>>> Subject: RE: [OAUTH-WG] Error Encoding: Conclusion
>>> 
>>> Actually, could you please publish before the ABNF is done so that I can
>>> publish a version of Bearer referencing the new text in Core, so it can be
>>> reviewed by the WG in parallel with the ABNF work happening?  I think that
>>> was Hannes' intent in asking you to publish soon.
>>
>>I'll review the text and will reply back as to publishing schedule.
>>
>>> Version numbers are
>>> cheap...
>>
>>My time isn't.
>>
>>EH
>>
>>>                 Thanks,
>>>                 -- Mike
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Eran Hammer [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>> Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 12:35 PM
>>> To: Hannes Tschofenig
>>> Cc: Mike Jones; [e-mail] WG
>>> Subject: RE: [OAUTH-WG] Error Encoding: Conclusion
>>> 
>>> I'll first review the proposed text (as a WG member) and raise any issues
>>> remaining (if any).
>>> 
>>> I will wait until the ABNF text is provided before publishing another version.
>>> 
>>> EH
>>> 
>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>> > From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>> > Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 10:54 AM
>>> > To: Eran Hammer
>>> > Cc: Mike Jones; [e-mail] WG; Hannes Tschofenig
>>> > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Error Encoding: Conclusion
>>> >
>>> > Eran, could you publish a new draft version by Sunday with these
>>> > changes incorporated? That should give the working group enough time
>>> > to look at these few paragraphs.
>>> >
>>> > In the meanwhile we are working on addressing the ABNF issue Sean
>>> > raised and we will then go for another update.
>>> >
>>> > Ciao
>>> > Hannes
>>> >
>>> > On May 31, 2012, at 8:20 PM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Hi Mike,
>>> > >
>>> > > thank you for compiling the text. It looks good to me. I have not
>>> > > seen
>>> > anyone from the working group screaming either.
>>> > >
>>> > > Eran, can you incorporate these changes into the next draft version?
>>> > >
>>> > > Ciao
>>> > > Hannes
>>> > >
>>> > > On May 30, 2012, at 2:10 AM, Mike Jones wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >> I've made another set of updates to a copy of Core -26 to address
>>> > >> the
>>> > questions raised by Eran and David below (attached).
>>> > >>
>>> > >> An unrelated change that you should probably pick up, Eran is
>>> > >> adding this
>>> > to the <front> section, so that the heading shows that the draft is a
>>> > product of the "OAuth Working Group" rather than the "Network Working
>>> Group":
>>> > >>    <area>Security</area>
>>> > >>    <workgroup>OAuth Working Group</workgroup>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> One change I didn't make, but that should be considered, is to
>>> > >> delete the
>>> > reference to OASIS.saml-core-2.0-os, since it is used by no <xref> in
>>> > the document.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> The new proposed text for Section 7.2 follows:
>>> > >>
>>> > >> 7.2.  Error Response
>>> > >>
>>> > >>  If a resource access request fails, the resource server SHOULD inform
>>> > >>  the client of the error.  While the specific error responses possible
>>> > >>  and methods for transmitting those errors when using any particular
>>> > >>  access token type are beyond the scope of this specification, any
>>> > >>  "error" code values defined for use with OAuth resource access
>>> > >>  methods MUST be registered (following the procedures in
>>> > >>  Section 11.4).
>>> > >>
>>> > >>  Specifically, when the OAuth resource access method uses an "error"
>>> > >>  result parameter to return an error code value that indicates the
>>> > >>  resource access error encountered, then these error code values
>>> MUST
>>> > >>  be registered.  Values for these "error" codes MUST NOT include
>>> > >>  characters outside the set %x20-21 / %x23-5B / %x5D-7E. When an
>>> > >>  "error" code value is registered for use by an OAuth resource access
>>> > >>  method, should that same code already be registered for use by
>>> > >>  another OAuth resource access method or at a different OAuth error
>>> > >>  usage location, then the meaning of that error code value in in the
>>> > >>  new registration MUST be consistent with the its meaning in prior
>>> > >>  registrations.
>>> > >>
>>> > >>  The OAuth resource access error registration requirement applies only
>>> > >>  to "error" code values and not to other means of returning error
>>> > >>  indications, including HTTP status codes, or other error-related
>>> > >>  result parameters, such as "error_description", "error_uri", or other
>>> > >>  kinds of error status return methods that may be employed by the
>>> > >>  resource access method.  There is no requirement that OAuth resource
>>> > >>  access methods employ an "error" parameter.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Hopefully incorporating these changes will enable us to close the
>>> > remaining DISCUSS issues on both the Core and Bearer drafts.
>>> > >>
>>> > >>                                                                Thanks all,
>>> > >>                                                                --
>>> > >> Mike
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> From: Eran Hammer [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>> > >> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 11:45 PM
>>> > >> To: David Recordon; Mike Jones; Hannes Tschofenig
>>> > >> Cc: [e-mail] WG
>>> > >> Subject: RE: [OAUTH-WG] Error Encoding: Conclusion
>>> > >>
>>> > >> With the exception of section 7.2, the changes look reasonable and
>>> > >> will be
>>> > applied in the next revision.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> The new section 7.2 is confusion and does not explain the new registry.
>>> > The section introduces a new requirement to register 'any error codes
>>> > defined for use with OAuth resource access methods'. This requirement
>>> > is too vague.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> I have no clue how to (for example) apply this text to the MAC draft.
>>> > Adding to David's list below:
>>> > >>
>>> > >> * Should the HTTP status codes used by the MAC spec as currently
>>> > >> written
>>> > be registered (since no guidance is given to the use of an error parameter)?
>>> > >> * Does this introduce a requirement to add an error parameter?
>>> > >> * Does the parameter need to / should be called 'error'?
>>> > >> * What about future methods in which errors are not simply
>>> > >> expressed in
>>> > the form of a fixes string?
>>> > >>
>>> > >> EH
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> From: David Recordon [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>> > >> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 11:38 PM
>>> > >> To: Mike Jones; Hannes Tschofenig; Eran Hammer
>>> > >> Cc: [e-mail] WG
>>> > >> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Error Encoding: Conclusion
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Honestly still trying to fully wrap my head around what's going on
>>> > >> here
>>> > since it seems far more complex than the threads are alluding to. In
>>> > any case, does Mike's text address what Eran brought up as needed in
>>> > the thread Hannes referenced or is Eran wrong?
>>> > >>
>>> > >> The core spec currently provides full guidance and definition for
>>> > >> error
>>> > extensibility. Extending the registry's scope means the need for
>>> > non-trivial new text that:
>>> > >>
>>> > >> * explains the process of adding new errors for endpoints not
>>> > >> defined by
>>> > this specification,
>>> > >> * finds a common ground for value restrictions beyond what is
>>> > >> already
>>> > listed,
>>> > >> * guide authors of future HTTP authentication schemes meant for use
>>> > with OAuth (e.g. MAC) for their requirements for using the error
>>> > registry, and
>>> > >> * address the very likely scenario of the same error code carrying
>>> > different meanings in different endpoints, or an extension that adds a
>>> > location to a code already defined elsewhere - something very likely
>>> > to happen if you cross the two very different domains (OAuth
>>> > endpoints, Protected resource endpoints). This requires changing the
>>> > entire structure of the registry to create separate records for each
>>> code/location pair.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Thanks,
>>> > >> --David
>>> > >>
>>> > >> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 10:22 PM, Mike Jones
>>> > <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> > >> Thanks Hannes.  In the interest of hopefully completing the edits
>>> > >> to
>>> > remove the DISCUSS issues for the Bearer and Core specs in the next
>>> > few days so that we can send the docs to the RFC editors, I'd like to
>>> > propose specific language for the Core spec to address both of the
>>> > consensus call issue resolutions.  After there's consensus on the
>>> > specific text for Core, it will be easy for us to add a reference in
>>> > Bearer to the language in Core for the error syntax restrictions and
>>> > to use the OAuth errors registry.  I'll do that in parallel with the discussions
>>> on the proposed core language changes.
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> A summary of the changes I made in response to the consensus call
>>> > conclusions are:
>>> > >>
>>> > >> *        Add syntax restrictions for "error", "error_description", and
>>> > "error_uri" from Bearer to Core
>>> > >>
>>> > >> *        Add section 7.2 about error responses from resource access
>>> requests
>>> > >>
>>> > >> *        Add "resource access error response" to the category of OAuth
>>> > errors that can be registered
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Additional editorial changes that I made as I encountered issues in
>>> > >> the
>>> > document were:
>>> > >>
>>> > >> *        Updated out of date references, especially the draft-hardt-oauth-
>>> 01
>>> > reference, which contained an invalid link
>>> > >>
>>> > >> *        Added Derek Atkins to the list of chairs
>>> > >>
>>> > >> *        Added Yaron Goland's middle initial Y. (since he prefers to include
>>> it
>>> > in publications)
>>> > >>
>>> > >> *        Replaced use of the deprecated <appendix> element, which
>>> > prevented the spec from building with strict checking, with a
>>> > <section> element in the <back> section (which creates an appendix)
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> To make it easy to incorporate these changes into the document and
>>> > >> so
>>> > the proposed changes are unambiguous, I produced an edited version of
>>> > Core -26 containing these changes.  The xml, txt, and html versions
>>> > are attached to facilitate review.  Pertinent diffs from the .txt version
>>> follow.
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>                                                            Cheers,
>>> > >>
>>> > >>                                                            -- Mike
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> 683c683,684
>>> > >>
>>> > >> <    notation of [RFC5234].
>>> > >>
>>> > >> ---
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>  notation of [RFC5234].  Additionally, the rule URI-Reference is
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>  included from Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) [RFC3986].
>>> > >>
>>> > >> 1441c1441,1442
>>> > >>
>>> > >> <          REQUIRED.  A single error code from the following:
>>> > >>
>>> > >> ---
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>        REQUIRED.  A single ASCII [USASCII] error code from the
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>        following:
>>> > >>
>>> > >> 1474a1475,1476
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>        Values for the "error" parameter MUST NOT include
>>> > >>> characters
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>        outside the set %x20-21 / %x23-5B / %x5D-7E.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> 1476c1478
>>> > >>
>>> > >> <          OPTIONAL.  A human-readable UTF-8 encoded text providing
>>> > >>
>>> > >> ---
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>        OPTIONAL.  A human-readable ASCII [USASCII] text providing
>>> > >>
>>> > >> 1478a1481,1482
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>        Values for the "error_description" parameter MUST NOT
>>> > >>> include
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>        characters outside the set %x20-21 / %x23-5B / %x5D-7E.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> 1482a1487,1489
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>        Values for the "error_uri" parameter MUST conform to the
>>> > >>> URI-
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>        Reference syntax, and thus MUST NOT include characters
>>> > >>> outside
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>        the set %x21 / %x23-5B / %x5D-7E.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> 1840c1840,1841
>>> > >>
>>> > >> <          REQUIRED.  A single error code from the following:
>>> > >>
>>> > >> ---
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>        REQUIRED.  A single ASCII [USASCII] error code from the
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>        following:
>>> > >>
>>> > >> 1873a1874,1875
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>        Values for the "error" parameter MUST NOT include
>>> > >>> characters
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>        outside the set %x20-21 / %x23-5B / %x5D-7E.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> 1875c1877
>>> > >>
>>> > >> <          OPTIONAL.  A human-readable UTF-8 encoded text providing
>>> > >>
>>> > >> ---
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>        OPTIONAL.  A human-readable ASCII [USASCII] text providing
>>> > >>
>>> > >> 1877a1880,1881
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>        Values for the "error_description" parameter MUST NOT
>>> > >>> include
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>        characters outside the set %x20-21 / %x23-5B / %x5D-7E.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> 1881a1886,1888
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>        Values for the "error_uri" parameter MUST conform to the
>>> > >>> URI-
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>        Reference syntax, and thus MUST NOT include characters
>>> > >>> outside
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>        the set %x21 / %x23-5B / %x5D-7E.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> <          REQUIRED.  A single error code from the following:
>>> > >>
>>> > >> ---
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>        REQUIRED.  A single ASCII [USASCII] error code from the
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>        following:
>>> > >>
>>> > >> 2325a2326,2327
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>        Values for the "error" parameter MUST NOT include
>>> > >>> characters
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>        outside the set %x20-21 / %x23-5B / %x5D-7E.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> 2327c2329
>>> > >>
>>> > >> <          OPTIONAL.  A human-readable UTF-8 encoded text providing
>>> > >>
>>> > >> ---
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>        OPTIONAL.  A human-readable ASCII [USASCII] text providing
>>> > >>
>>> > >> 2329a2332,2333
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>        Values for the "error_description" parameter MUST NOT
>>> > >>> include
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>        characters outside the set %x20-21 / %x23-5B / %x5D-7E.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> 2333a2338,2340
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>        Values for the "error_uri" parameter MUST conform to the
>>> > >>> URI-
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>        Reference syntax, and thus MUST NOT include characters
>>> > >>> outside
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>        the set %x21 / %x23-5B / %x5D-7E.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> 2450c2460,2468
>>> > >>
>>> > >> <    The method in which the client utilized the access token to
>>> > >>
>>> > >> ---
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>  The method in which the client utilizes the access token to
>>> > >>
>>> > >> 2479c2489
>>> > >>
>>> > >> <      Authorization: Bearer 7Fjfp0ZBr1KtDRbnfVdmIw
>>> > >>
>>> > >> ---
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>    Authorization: Bearer mF_9.B5f-4.1JqM
>>> > >>
>>> > >> 2503a2514,2533
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>> 7.2.  Error Response
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>  If a resource access request fails, the resource server SHOULD
>>> > >>> inform
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>  the client of the error.  While the specific error responses
>>> > >>> possible
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>  and methods for transmitting those errors when using any
>>> > >>> particular
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>  access token type are beyond the scope of this specification,
>>> > >>> any
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>  error codes defined for use with OAuth resource access methods
>>> > >>> MUST
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>  be registered (following the procedures in Section 11.4).
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> 2602,2603c2624,2626
>>> > >>
>>> > >> <    (Section 4.2.2.1), or the token error response (Section 5.2), such
>>> > >>
>>> > >> <    error codes MAY be defined.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> ---
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>  (Section 4.2.2.1), the token error response (Section 5.2), or
>>> > >>> the
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>  resource access error response (Section 7.2), such error codes
>>> > >>> MAY be
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>  defined.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> 3444c3484,3485
>>> > >>
>>> > >> <      (Section 4.2.2.1), or token error response (Section 5.2).
>>> > >>
>>> > >> ---
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>      (Section 4.2.2.1), token error response (Section 5.2), or
>>> > >>> resource
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>      access error response (Section 7.2).
>>> > >>
>>> > >> 3596a3554,3557
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>  [USASCII]  American National Standards Institute, "Coded
>>> > >>> Character
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>              Set -- 7-bit American Standard Code for Information
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>              Interchange", ANSI X3.4, 1986.
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> 3611,3612c3572,3573
>>> > >>
>>> > >> <              OAuth 2.0", draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer-08 (work in
>>> > >>
>>> > >> <              progress), August 2011.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> ---
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>              OAuth 2.0", draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer-12 (work in
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>              progress), May 2012.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> 3616,3617c3577,3579
>>> > >>
>>> > >> <              Protocol: Bearer Tokens", draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-08
>>> > >>
>>> > >> <              (work in progress), July 2011.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> ---
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>              Authorization Protocol: Bearer Tokens",
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>              draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-19 (work in progress),
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>              April 2012.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> 3620,3623c3589,3591
>>> > >>
>>> > >> <              Hammer-Lahav, E., Barth, A., and B. Adida, "HTTP
>>> > >>
>>> > >> <              Authentication: MAC Access Authentication",
>>> > >>
>>> > >> <              draft-ietf-oauth-v2-http-mac-00 (work in progress),
>>> > >>
>>> > >> <              May 2011.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> ---
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>              Hammer-Lahav, E., "HTTP Authentication: MAC Access
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>              Authentication", draft-ietf-oauth-v2-http-mac-01
>>> > >>> (work in
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>              progress), February 2012.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> 3626c3594
>>> > >>
>>> > >> <              Lodderstedt, T., McGloin, M., and P. Hunt, "OAuth 2.0
>>> > >>
>>> > >> ---
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>              McGloin, M., Hunt, P., and T. Lodderstedt, "OAuth 2.0
>>> > >>
>>> > >> 3628,3629c3596,3597
>>> > >>
>>> > >> <              draft-ietf-oauth-v2-threatmodel-00 (work in progress),
>>> > >>
>>> > >> <              July 2011.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> ---
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>              draft-ietf-oauth-v2-threatmodel-02 (work in
>>> > >>> progress),
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>              February 2012.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> 3468,3546d3503
>>> > >>
>>> > >> <    Brian Eaton, Yaron Goland, Dick Hardt, and Allen Tom.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> 3639c3609,3639
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>  Brian Eaton, Yaron Y. Goland, Dick Hardt, and Allen Tom.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> 3468,3546d3503
>>> > >>
>>> > >> <    Yaron Goland, Brent Goldman, Kristoffer Gronowski, Justin Hart,
>>> > >>
>>> > >> 3644,3645c3644,3656
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>  Yaron Y. Goland, Brent Goldman, Kristoffer Gronowski, Justin
>>> > >>> Hart,
>>> > >>
>>> > >> 3468,3546d3503
>>> > >>
>>> > >> <    This document was produced under the chairmanship of Blaine
>>> Cook,
>>> > >>
>>> > >> <    Peter Saint-Andre, Hannes Tschofenig, and Barry Leiba.  The area
>>> > >>
>>> > >> <    directors included Lisa Dusseault, Peter Saint-Andre, and Stephen
>>> > >>
>>> > >> <    Farrell.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> 3646a3658,3661
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>  This document was produced under the chairmanship of Blaine
>>> > >>> Cook,
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>  Peter Saint-Andre, Hannes Tschofenig, Barry Leiba, and Derek Atkins.
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>  The area directors included Lisa Dusseault, Peter Saint-Andre,
>>> > >>> and
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>  Stephen Farrell.
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> -----Original Message-----
>>> > >> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
>>> > Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig
>>> > >> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 11:27 AM
>>> > >> To: [e-mail] WG
>>> > >> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Error Encoding: Conclusion
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Hi all,
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> on May 10th we called for consensus on an open issue regarding the
>>> > >> error
>>> > encoding. Here is the link to the call:
>>> > >>
>>> > >> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg08994.html
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Thank you all for the feedback. The conclusion of the consensus
>>> > >> call was
>>> > to harmonize the encoding between the two specifications by
>>> > incorporating the restrictions from the bearer specification into the
>>> > base specification. The error encoding will go into the core
>>> > specification and the bearer specification will reference it.
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Ciao
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Hannes & Derek
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> _______________________________________________
>>> > >>
>>> > >> OAuth mailing list
>>> > >>
>>> > >> [e-mail]
>>> > >>
>>> > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> _______________________________________________
>>> > >> OAuth mailing list
>>> > >> [e-mail]
>>> > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> <draft-ietf-oauth-v2-26+mbj-2.xml><draft-ietf-oauth-v2-26+mbj-
>>> > 2.txt><draft-ietf-oauth-v2-26+mbj-2.html>
>>> > >
>>> 
>>> 
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>OAuth mailing list
>>[e-mail]
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>
>>
>
>