IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Encoding of Errors in the Base and in the Bearer Spec

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Fri, 11 May 2012 13:51 UTC

Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.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 D92BE21F860B for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 May 2012 06:51:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.621
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.621 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.022, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 7nL+4phNr573 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 May 2012 06:51:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (cmgw1.cloudmark.com [208.83.136.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15B4D21F8718 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 May 2012 06:51:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com ([72.5.239.25]) by mail.cloudmark.com with bizsmtp id 8dri1j0010ZaKgw01driYV; Fri, 11 May 2012 06:51:42 -0700
X-CMAE-Match: 0
X-CMAE-Score: 0.00
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=R/iB6KtX c=1 sm=1 a=LdFkGDrDWH2mcjCZERnC4w==:17 a=ldJM1g7oyCcA:10 a=vfa_Bs7FPFsA:10 a=zutiEJmiVI4A:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=WPfEoFxUsdxxA8gXFKIA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=LdFkGDrDWH2mcjCZERnC4w==:117
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::2524:76b6:a865:539c%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Fri, 11 May 2012 06:51:42 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] Encoding of Errors in the Base and in the Bearer Spec
Thread-Index: AQHNL0OnFfkxumpYNEqBfw8xLEjaT5bEo3gA///3bYA=
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 13:51:42 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392811E21F@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <7D98C51F-84D8-48AA-B94D-EABE4D0921DB@gmx.net> <0CBAEB56DDB3A140BA8E8C124C04ECA201026B48@P3PWEX2MB008.ex2.secureserver.net> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B1680429673943664CE3AE@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <0CBAEB56DDB3A140BA8E8C124C04ECA201026CA8@P3PWEX2MB008.ex2.secureserver.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20120510235528.0a735658@resistor.net> <0CBAEB56DDB3A140BA8E8C124C04ECA201029A8A@P3PWEX2MB008.ex2.secureserver.net>
In-Reply-To: <0CBAEB56DDB3A140BA8E8C124C04ECA201029A8A@P3PWEX2MB008.ex2.secureserver.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [67.160.203.60]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com; s=default; t=1336744302; bh=ZHCBC/EyVzMLt92Ei634pyd6ozGm0l6pM5W4C5XXUhg=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=mwNqtyNIH0oPs8tOQyPoOzacn0dzIeRSI81P0YbGshGJUXdvnVMQtApciGnmx8xbC ej+wi/pinIzmvO9B1amIR2qmwc91Kct1ZjFzUwWzA8EgzgbX1n7TVD5N9MJR2b9hgl k2qYgvBTGyf+Z3dc+n4YXsmPY4vMoRHKJ/VVVRqo=
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Encoding of Errors in the Base and in the Bearer Spec
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: Fri, 11 May 2012 13:51:45 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Eran Hammer
> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 12:19 AM
> To: SM
> Cc: oauth@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Encoding of Errors in the Base and in the Bearer Spec
> 
> Don't know. In the 5 RFCs I've worked on, I - as editor - was the only
> personal who interacted with the IESG. Either way, it is usually the
> editor who is addressing questions about the text and proposing
> changes.

It sounds like you've had some pretty hands-off shepherds in your experience (as have I), or you dealt with the issues yourself which obviated the need for that person to act.  But formally, SM is correct about the Document Shepherd's function.  See RFC4858.

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email