IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Error Registry: Conclusion

Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com> Thu, 14 June 2012 21:40 UTC

Return-Path: <Michael.Jones@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 AFBD611E808E for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 14:40:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.766
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.766 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.166, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 N-fjICqqbGp2 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 14:40:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from am1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (am1ehsobe005.messaging.microsoft.com [213.199.154.208]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A469911E8079 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 14:40:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail5-am1-R.bigfish.com (10.3.201.225) by AM1EHSOBE001.bigfish.com (10.3.204.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:39:19 +0000
Received: from mail5-am1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail5-am1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F210A01B9; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:39:19 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.8; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:TK5EX14MLTC103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -27
X-BigFish: VS-27(zz9371I14ffI542Mzz1202hzz1033IL8275dhz2fh2a8h668h839h944hd25hf0ah)
Received-SPF: pass (mail5-am1: domain of microsoft.com designates 131.107.125.8 as permitted sender) client-ip=131.107.125.8; envelope-from=Michael.Jones@microsoft.com; helo=TK5EX14MLTC103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ; icrosoft.com ;
Received: from mail5-am1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail5-am1 (MessageSwitch) id 1339709957636661_10007; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:39:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from AM1EHSMHS009.bigfish.com (unknown [10.3.201.237]) by mail5-am1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F5B91A0048; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:39:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from TK5EX14MLTC103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (131.107.125.8) by AM1EHSMHS009.bigfish.com (10.3.207.109) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:39:17 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.1.189]) by TK5EX14MLTC103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.79.174]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.005; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:40:02 +0000
From: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
To: Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] Error Registry: Conclusion
Thread-Index: AQHNMuF2SEvCPjHVP0qi3ETkqD5Qwpb6hReg
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:40:02 +0000
Message-ID: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B1680429673943665393AB@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <42B29A82-D8BA-40B8-9569-B209CBBBC3B7@gmx.net>
In-Reply-To: <42B29A82-D8BA-40B8-9569-B209CBBBC3B7@gmx.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.37]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org WG" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Error Registry: Conclusion
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: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:40:29 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email