Decisions are never made outside the list. EHL
> -----Original Message----- > From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Phillip Hunt > Sent: Friday, March 11, 2011 10:19 PM > To: Anthony Nadalin > Cc: oauth@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Vote: Location of OAuth Errors Registry, deadline > Friday, March 18 > > I have not seen any detailed agenda for IETF 80. If there will be votes that > override email votes all participant should so be informed. > > Phil > > Sent from my phone. > > On 2011-03-11, at 17:46, Anthony Nadalin <tony...@microsoft.com> wrote: > > >> Why the early cut-off date? As this is in advance of IETF 80, changes will > wait until after Prague in any case. > > To inform the discussions @ IETF 80 to determine what else might be > > needed, which goes to your second comment > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf > > Of Lucy Lynch > > Sent: Friday, March 11, 2011 5:41 PM > > To: Mike Jones > > Cc: oauth@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Vote: Location of OAuth Errors Registry, > > deadline Friday, March 18 > > > > On Fri, 11 Mar 2011, Mike Jones wrote: > > > >> 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.h > >> t ml#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. > > > > Why the early cut-off date? As this is in advance of IETF 80, changes will > wait until after Prague in any case. > > > >> 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. > > > > Consensus isn't achieved by voting so all you'll get is poll data but that > > may > be useful here. While I agree that there has been some discussion, I don't > think the relative merits of the models have been made clear to the group. A > fuller discussion of the need for an extensible registry for errors (before > decided where to home the text) might be more helpful. > > > > - Lucy > > > > > >> Cheers, > >> -- Mike > >> > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OAuth mailing list > > OAuth@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
