[OAUTH-WG] Error Registry Consensus Call

Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net> Mon, 07 May 2012 22:48 UTC

Return-Path: <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 722BE11E8074 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 May 2012 15:48:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lVdlZtOY4960 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 May 2012 15:48:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6AFC221F864E for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 May 2012 15:48:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 07 May 2012 22:48:26 -0000
Received: from unknown (EHLO dhcp50-94-118-50.hil-dcaaedt.dca.wayport.net) [] by mail.gmx.net (mp033) with SMTP; 08 May 2012 00:48:26 +0200
X-Authenticated: #29516787
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/+2W0E4S3+PZ+H2kAn4Alr5i6rfbi6MBZqON3W0N yIv39MDYTbdsJE
From: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 01:48:16 +0300
Message-Id: <53E17703-C3BD-48A1-8CB6-BD0D3795DD77@gmx.net>
To: "oauth@ietf.org WG" <oauth@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Error Registry Consensus Call
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: Mon, 07 May 2012 22:48:29 -0000

Hi all, 

there is an open issue concerning draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-19 that may impact draft-ietf-oauth-v2-26 (depending on it's resolution) and we would like to get feedback from the working group about it. 

Here is the issue: When a client makes an access to a protected resources then things may go wrong and an error may be returned in response. draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer talks about this behavior. 

That's great but these error codes need to be registered somewhere. Note that the registry can be created in one document while the values can be registered by many documents. 

So, where should the registry be?

There are two choices. 

a) A new OAuth errors registry goes into draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer.

b) draft-ietf-oauth-v2 expands the scope of the existing OAuth Errors registry to encompass errors returned from resource servers.

Currently, draft-ietf-oauth-v2 creates registries for error codes only for the exchanges from A-to-D (symbols used from Figure 1 of draft-ietf-oauth-v2), but excludes registration of errors from flows E-F.

We must create a registry for error codes from flows E-F.  In which document do we want to create this registry?

So, give us your feedback whether you have a preference by the end of the week. 

Hannes & Derek