Re: [OAUTH-WG] On the OAuth Core Spec

I'm thinking about what the appropriate updates to 7.2 are.  Your question about "What if the parameter is named 'err' rather than 'error'?" is a fair one, for instance.  I'll also target proposed updates to that for Monday.

As to the question of one OAuth Errors registry versus four, as I suspect you saw, I've asked Hannes to withdraw his suggestion to split the one registry into four.  Hopefully that can be resolved soon too.

				-- Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Eran Hammer [mailto:eran@hueniverse.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 2:22 PM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: oauth@ietf.org
Subject: RE: On the OAuth Core Spec

Sounds good.

Any progress on a revised 7.2? I'd like to get clarity on that so we can agree on new text and close the issue along with the ABNF.

EH

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Jones [mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 2:18 PM
> To: Eran Hammer
> Cc: oauth@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: On the OAuth Core Spec
> 
> FYI, Eran, I'm going to hold off sending you proposed updated ABNF 
> text for a few more days to let the discussions continue and consensus 
> to build.  I'm currently mentally targeting sending proposed draft updates Monday.
> 
> 				Best wishes,
> 				-- Mike
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf 
> Of Eran Hammer
> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 11:53 AM
> To: Derek Atkins
> Cc: oauth@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] On the OAuth Core Spec
> 
> Derek - Thank you for this note. It is very much appreacited.
> 
> > From: Derek Atkins [mailto:derek@ihtfp.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 10:28 AM
> 
> > Having said that, are you still willing and able to be the editor of 
> > this draft and see it to its conclusion and publication?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > If so, we will need to get another
> > draft out by this Friday (June 15), and I suspect we'll need another 
> > draft that solves the encoding issue (brought up by the ABNF 
> > exercise), targeting Friday, June 29th.  Do you think you can make 
> > these target dates (assuming that there is text for you to apply to 
> > the
> draft)?
> 
> There are two main open issues I'm aware of:
> 
> 1. Error registry text
> 
> * The text provided by Mike Jones for section 7.2 is unlcear. I have 
> provided feedback on the list and am waiting to hear back from Mike (or anyone else).
> Once I understand the actual intention of the new normative language, 
> I will rework the text to reflect those changes. While I have strong 
> objections to the error code registry in genreal, once decided, my 
> only goal is to ensure the text is clear, complete, and reflects 
> working group consensus. I do not have strong interest in how the 
> working group resolves the rules around the registry as long as they are clear and practical. The current text for 7.2 is not.
> 
> * In the consensus call for the error registry, Hannes requested (or 
> suggested, it wasn't clear given the context) that the registry be 
> implemented by IANA using separate tables. This requires prose changes 
> to instruct IANA as such. Without changes, IANA will create a single 
> table which is not what was requested. I have not seen much discussion 
> on this. I am waiting for the chairs to clarify this and for someone 
> to provide text if this is still the case (I have sent multiple emails on this to the list).
> 
> 2. ABNF
> 
> * Mike Jones is doing solid work progressing the ABNF forward with the 
> guidance of Julian. I trust Julian blindly to guide the text to a 
> successful conculsion and the working group seems enaged. As soon as 
> new text is available, I will incorporate and publish. If a schedule 
> conflict arises in which I am unable to push the ABNF changes, I have 
> no objections to Mike Jones pushing a new draft with only ABNF related 
> change after quick coordination (Mike can submit using my contact and I'll approve it within a few hours).
> 
> I also have a short list of nits and typos reported to the list and me 
> directly over the past few weeks which are all insignificant to list.
> 
> I am available to publish another draft on or by 6/14, and again on or 
> by 6/27 (or 6/30 after my travel). I will be travelling on the exact 
> dates listed. I am hoping that these dates are flexible within a few 
> days range. In order for me to publish a new draft by 6/14, I will 
> need the changes a day before to prepare. If the changes are ABNF 
> only, I can work with Mike Jones to arrange it without putting my 
> travel restriction in the way. I need the chairs to clarify what is 
> expected in each of these drafts and how they seek to resolve the issues around item #1 above to continue.
> 
> Again, thanks for the note.
> 
> EH
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> 