Re: [OAUTH-WG] Error Registry: Conclusion

Thanks, Hannes.  I believe that leaves the particulars of the ABNF and possible encoding of client_id values containing colon for use with HTTP Basic as the only open issues for Core.

				-- Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net] 
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 11:27 AM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: Hannes Tschofenig; oauth@ietf.org WG
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Error Registry: Conclusion

Hi Mike, 

thanks for raising this issue. 

I am fine with the currently proposed approach. I just had a personal preference for separate tables for readability purposes -- not a big issue. 

Ciao
Hannes

On Jun 15, 2012, at 12:40 AM, Mike Jones wrote:

> Hi Hannes,
> 
> You stated a preference for separate registries below, but that was a larger change to the OAuth Core spec than the current draft, which added a fourth error usage location "resource access error response" to the registry.  To my knowledge, the consensus call didn't ask people to express a preference between having four separate OAuth Errors registries versus one OAuth Errors registry allowing any combination of a set of four usage locations to be specified.
> 
> Given that the two choices are completely equivalent, and we had previously established the single OAuth Errors registry with three possible usage locations, extending it to a fourth seemed to be both more natural and easier for people to understand.
> 
> Therefore, I'd like to ask you to withdraw your suggestion and allow the existing structure of the OAuth Errors registry to remain.
> 
> 				Thank you,
> 				-- Mike
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig
> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 2:27 PM
> To: oauth@ietf.org WG
> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Error Registry: Conclusion
> 
> Hi all, 
> 
> on May 8th we called for consensus on an open issue regarding the location of the error registry. Here is the call for comments: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg08952.html. 
> 
> Thank you all for the feedback. The consensus is to create the registry in the core document.
> 
> Section 11.4.1 already sort-of creates sub-registries to illustrate where the different errors can be used. This is needed since some of the errors may only appear in certain error responses. Hence, we need add another one to this list (suggestion: 'resource access error response'). In fact, I would prefer IANA to create separate tables for each of these sub-registries to avoid confusion for the reader (instead of putting everything into a single table). 
> 
> We believe that these changes are really minor and address IESG feedback.
> 
> Ciao
> Hannes & Derek
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> 
> 