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

George Fletcher <> Mon, 04 February 2013 20:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACCF421F8B3A for <>; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 12:57:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.679
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.679 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.921, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IsV27IqP1DBU for <>; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 12:57:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 279E221F8B1E for <>; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 12:57:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id 9A4571C0001DB; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 15:57:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from palantir.local (unknown []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (MUA/Third Party Client Interface) with ESMTPSA id 4D869E0000D4; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 15:57:56 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 15:57:55 -0500
From: George Fletcher <>
Organization: AOL LLC
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Richer, Justin P." <>
References: <> <B33BFB58CCC8BE4998958016839DE27E06886427@IMCMBX01.MITRE.ORG>
In-Reply-To: <B33BFB58CCC8BE4998958016839DE27E06886427@IMCMBX01.MITRE.ORG>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
x-aol-global-disposition: G
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20121107; t=1360011477; bh=+Zm5iSpO+zwuCL5uDbFxyC+Lr2BWXkvylZCO8pPyuK8=; h=From:To:Subject:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=oU4zJAlp2pIXwx6YQ1eBRSnf4clp8hw59Re++QUdIUYbd43kltjcST+k4J0z5CLUu +kPHDZeR6SDEWeKKW6hBZRXc2hxHwdwhuZYAHooU0gCMbzI72pnHoLrcWepNkUYexJ XgI9kkW89hh5iXYTKo0/HBpc2JrRwonPGxN2ZdUw=
X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:464563904:93952408
x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d2943511020d40b55
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 20:57:58 -0000

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.