Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-revocation

"Richer, Justin P." <> Mon, 04 February 2013 21:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D6C821F8934 for <>; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 13:10:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.56
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.56 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.039, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fWYTT8RarOth for <>; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 13:10:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B647A21F8935 for <>; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 13:10:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost.localdomain []) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 60B2D1F060A; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 16:10:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from IMCCAS04.MITRE.ORG ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 512851F062C; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 16:10:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from IMCMBX01.MITRE.ORG ([]) by IMCCAS04.MITRE.ORG ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 16:10:23 -0500
From: "Richer, Justin P." <>
To: George Fletcher <>
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-revocation
Thread-Index: AQHOAg6vIhUkwEc0U0KvYyCodlh1/Jhqf9CAgAAEf4CAAAN8gA==
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 21:10:23 +0000
Message-ID: <B33BFB58CCC8BE4998958016839DE27E068865E3@IMCMBX01.MITRE.ORG>
References: <> <B33BFB58CCC8BE4998958016839DE27E06886427@IMCMBX01.MITRE.ORG> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: OAuth WG <>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-revocation
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 21:10:25 -0000

On Feb 4, 2013, at 3:57 PM, George Fletcher <>

> On 2/4/13 3:41 PM, Richer, Justin P. wrote:
>> On Feb 3, 2013, at 8:01 AM, Torsten Lodderstedt <> wrote:
>>> - invalid_token error code: I propose to use the new error code "invalid_parameter" (as suggested by Peter and George). I don't see the need to register it (see but would like to get your advice.
>> something more like "invalid_token_parameter" would maybe make sense, since it's not just *any* parameter, it's the special "token" parameter that we're talking about, but it's distinct from the invalid_token response. The introspection endpoint uses the same pattern of a token= parameter, but since the whole point of the introspection endpoint is determining token validity it doesn't actually throw an error here.
>> I agree that it doesn't need to be registered (since it's on a different endpoint).
> For what it's worth my thinking was that if we have an 'invalid_parameter' error, then the description can define which parameter is invalid. I don't think we should create a bunch of specific error values that are endpoint specific and could overlap which is where the whole error return value started.

Hm, I see what you're saying, but the error response is already endpoint specific. Though there is value in not having conflicting and/or confusing responses from different endpoints that use the same error code for different things. 

What it really comes down to is: what can the client do with this error? Could it do something with invalid_parameter that it couldn't do with invalid_token_parameter (among others), or vice versa? As I'm writing this out, I'm not convinced that it could, really, so this may be a bike shedding argument.

 -- Justin