My vote is D, or C -- if you really have a use case for extensible errors in Bearer.
As for consistency, the WG should attempt to keep error codes sensible and consistently applied. ________________________________ From: Mike Jones <michael.jo...@microsoft.com> To: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2011 3:04 PM 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 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
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
