Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: [IANA #596670] Protocol Action: 'The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework: Bearer Token Usage' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-23.txt)

Thanks.

________________________________
 From: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
To: William Mills <wmills_92105@yahoo.com>; Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com>; "oauth@ietf.org WG" <oauth@ietf.org> 
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 11:43 AM
Subject: RE: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: [IANA #596670] Protocol Action: 'The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework: Bearer Token Usage' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-23.txt)

“Specification Required” is correct, as that’s what’s used in OAuth Core.  I believe that the case insensitivity comes from RFC 2617, which for instance, seems to use “Basic” and “basic” interchangeably.

                                                                -- Mike

From:oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of William Mills
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 9:34 AM
To: Dick Hardt; oauth@ietf.org WG
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: [IANA #596670] Protocol Action: 'The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework: Bearer Token Usage' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-23.txt)

1) Is it a problem that everything here seems to have "specification required" for the "Registration Procedures"?

2) In HTTP Authentication schemes, is the case insensitivity implicit here? (I think so)

-bill

________________________________

From:Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com>
To: "oauth@ietf.org WG" <oauth@ietf.org> 
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 1:04 PM
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: [IANA #596670] Protocol Action: 'The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework: Bearer Token Usage' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-23.txt)

Once again, would be great to have a few more eyes checking the IANA registrations. 

Note these are for the Bearer Token spec. 

I like that the error registry items are sorted alphabetically already. :)

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Amanda Baber via RT" <drafts-approval@iana.org>
Subject: [IANA #596670] Protocol Action: 'The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework: Bearer Token Usage' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-23.txt) 
Date: August 10, 2012 12:20:33 PM PDT
Cc: mbj@microsoft.com, dick.hardt@gmail.com, oauth-chairs@tools.ietf.org, oauth-ads@tools.ietf.org
Reply-To: drafts-approval@iana.org

Dear Authors:

ATTENTION: A RESPONSE TO THIS MESSAGE IS NEEDED 

We have completed the IANA Actions for RFC-to-be
draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-23

ACTION 1:

IANA has registered the following OAuth Access Token Type:

Name: Bearer
Additional Endpoint Response Parameters: 
HTTP Authentication Scheme(s): Bearer 
Change Controller: IETF          
Reference: [RFC-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-23]

Please see
http://www.iana.org/assignments/oauth-parameters

ACTION 2:

IANA has registered the following in the OAuth Extensions Error Registry:

invalid_request  
Usage Location: Resource access error response  
Protocol Extension: Bearer access token type  
Change Controller: IETF  
Reference: [RFC-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-23]

invalid_token
Usage Location: Resource access error response  
Protocol Extension: Bearer access token type  
Change Controller: IETF  
Reference: [RFC-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-23]

insufficient_scope
Usage Location: Resource access error response  
Protocol Extension: Bearer access token type  
Change Controller: IETF  
Reference: [RFC-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-23]

Please see
http://www.iana.org/assignments/oauth-parameters

Please let us know whether the above IANA Actions look OK. As 
soon as we receive your confirmation, we'll notify the RFC Editor 
that this document's IANA Actions are complete. (If this document 
has a team of authors, one reply on behalf of everyone will suffice.)

Thanks,

Amanda Baber
ICANN/IANA

_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth