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

George Fletcher <gffletch@aol.com> Mon, 04 February 2013 20:57 UTC

Return-Path: <gffletch@aol.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACCF421F8B3A for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 12:57:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.679
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.679 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.921, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IsV27IqP1DBU for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 12:57:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imr-da02.mx.aol.com (imr-da02.mx.aol.com [205.188.105.144]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 279E221F8B1E for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 12:57:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mtaout-mb03.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaout-mb03.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.41.67]) by imr-da02.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id 9A4571C0001DB; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 15:57:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from palantir.local (unknown [10.181.176.202]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mtaout-mb03.r1000.mx.aol.com (MUA/Third Party Client Interface) with ESMTPSA id 4D869E0000D4; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 15:57:56 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <511020D3.1090201@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 15:57:55 -0500
From: George Fletcher <gffletch@aol.com>
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." <jricher@mitre.org>
References: <510E5FB5.10803@lodderstedt.net> <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; d=mx.aol.com; 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-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0
x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d2943511020d40b55
X-AOL-IP: 10.181.176.202
Cc: OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-revocation
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, 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 <torsten@lodderstedt.net> 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