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

[George Fletcher <[e-mail]>]

On 2/4/13 3:41 PM, Richer, Justin P. wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2013, at 8:01 AM, Torsten Lodderstedt <[e-mail]> 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 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg10604.html) 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.

Thanks,
George