D (not objection to C). So far, not a single use case or technical rational has been presented to justify option A.
Option B is not a valid option per IETF process (for option B to be valid, the protocol spec must first be published as an RFC, and they the bearer token spec updates it). This entire proposal received practically no support or interest and calling for a vote on it is a bit overreaching. EHL From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mike Jones Sent: Friday, March 11, 2011 3:04 PM To: oauth@ietf.org Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Vote: Location of OAuth Errors Registry, deadline Friday, March 18 As you know, the OAuth 2.0 Bearer Token draft -03 established the OAuth Errors Registry<http://self-issued.info/docs/draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-03.html#errors-registry> to increase interoperability among implementations using the related OAuth specifications. As you also know, there has been some discussion about whether: A) The OAuth Errors Registry belongs in in the Framework specification rather than the bearer token specification, B) The OAuth Errors Registry should continue to be defined in the Bearer Token specification and apply to all OAuth specifications, C) The OAuth Errors Registry should reside in the Bearer Token specification but be scoped back to only apply to that specification, or D) The OAuth Errors Registry should be deleted because the set of errors should not be extensible. Please vote for A, B, C, or D by Friday, March 18th. I personally believe that A makes the most sense, but given that other points of view have also been voiced, this consensus call is needed to resolve the issue. Cheers, -- Mike
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
