Hi Mike, This is intentional. The error registry defined in v2 is not designed to record errors for the protected resource endpoint response or the WWW-Authenticate response header when used with the Bearer token scheme (or any other scheme).
The only purpose of the registry is to avoid name collisions between two errors used differently with the v2 specification. Since errors used with the Bearer token scheme will never appear in the same place as the v2 endpoints, there is no need for combining these two registries. If the bearer token specification requires error extensibility, you should retain the registry there and limit it to just the protected resource response space. Ideally, you would limit it to just the WWW-Authenticate header 'error' parameter when used with the Bearer scheme. The MAC scheme does not use error codes, but instead, relies fully on HTTP status code since no additional error conditions were identified. Also, since your ABNF permits adding additional Authorization header parameters, you might want to consider defining a process for doing that, if you are going to define an error registry. Currently, to add additional parameters, one has to update the Bearer token RFC, in contrast to simply registering a new error code (which is likely to come out of a new parameter). EHL From: Mike Jones [mailto:michael.jo...@microsoft.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 2:25 PM To: Eran Hammer-Lahav; OAuth WG Subject: RE: Error registry proposal (round 3) Thanks for writing this up, Eran. I believe that this is a step in the right direction. Wearing my Bearer Token spec editor hat, I just tried to go through the exercise of editing my document to use the registry in draft 15 to register the errors defined in the bearer token spec and I hit a roadblock. Specifically, while the errors defined by my spec are returned by resource servers (flow F in Figure 1), the registry defined by draft 15 does not include "resource server error response" in the "error usage location" list. Can you please add this additional error usage location so that the registry can be used by the bearer token specification? At that point, I believe we'll be able to close the open issue about the need for an error registry, and I'll update my draft accordingly. Thank you, -- Mike From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Eran Hammer-Lahav Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 3:52 PM To: OAuth WG Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Error registry proposal (round 3) The following is my new proposal, based on Mike Jones' and my earlier proposals. It is basically a combination of the two. This proposal does not allow defining new error codes unless another extension is involved (new grant type, request parameter, token type). The reason for not defining an open ended error registry is that defining new error codes for existing implementations is bad for interoperability and can lead to unexpected results (developers not taking into account receiving a new error when talking to a compliant 2.0 server). We don't have any use cases for defining such new errors for the v2 specification. New errors only come from extensions and must be defined in that context. I have applied to changes to the -14 draft and clearly marked them with [[Pending Consensus]] so that there is no issue with removing them or changing them later. --- Add to the error codes list in sections 4.1.2.1 and 4.2.2.1: a 4xx or 5xx HTTP status code (except for 400 and 401) The authorization server MAY set the "error" parameter value to a numerical HTTP status code from the 4xx or 5xx range, with the exception of the 400 (Bad Request) and 401 (Unauthorized) status codes. For example, if the service is temporarily unavailable, the authorization server MAY return an error response with "error" set to "503". Add a new section 8.4: 8.4. Defining Additional Error Codes In cases where protocol extensions (i.e. access token types, extension parameters, or extension grant types) require additional error codes to be used with the authorization code grant error response (Section 4.1.2.1), the implicit grant error response (Section 4.2.2.1), or the token error response (Section 5.2), such error codes MAY be defined. Extension error codes MUST be registered (following the procedures in Section 10.3) if the extension they are used in conjunction with is registered. Additional error codes used with unregistered extensions MAY be registered. Error codes MUST conform to the error-code ABNF, and SHOULD be prefixed by an identifying name when possible. For example, an error identifying an invalid value set to the extension parameter "example" should be named "example_invalid". error-code = ALPHA *error-char error-char = "-" / "." / "_" / DIGIT / ALPHA Add a new section 10.3: 10.3. The OAuth Extensions Error Registry This specification establishes the OAuth extensions error registry. Additional error codes used together with other protocol extensions (i.e. extension grant types, access token types, or extension parameters) are registered on the advice of one or more Designated Experts (appointed by the IESG or their delegate), with a Specification Required (using terminology from [RFC5226]). However, to allow for the allocation of values prior to publication, the Designated Expert(s) may approve registration once they are satisfied that such a specification will be published. Registration requests should be sent to the [TBD]@ietf.org mailing list for review and comment, with an appropriate subject (e.g., "Request for error code: example"). [[ Note to RFC-EDITOR: The name of the mailing list should be determined in consultation with the IESG and IANA. Suggested name: oauth-ext-review. ]] Within at most 14 days of the request, the Designated Expert(s) will either approve or deny the registration request, communicating this decision to the review list and IANA. Denials should include an explanation and, if applicable, suggestions as to how to make the request successful. Decisions (or lack thereof) made by the Designated Expert can be first appealed to Application Area Directors (contactable using app-...@tools.ietf.org<mailto:app-...@tools.ietf.org> email address or directly by looking up their email addresses on http://www.iesg.org/ website) and, if the appellant is not satisfied with the response, to the full IESG (using the i...@iesg.org<mailto:i...@iesg.org> mailing list). IANA should only accept registry updates from the Designated Expert(s), and should direct all requests for registration to the review mailing list. 10.3.1. Registration Template Error name: The name requested (e.g., "example"). Error usage location: The location(s) where the error can be used. The possible locations are: authorization code grant error response (Section 4.1.2.1), implicit grant error response (Section 4.2.2.1), or token error response (Section 5.2). Related protocol extension: The name of the extension grant type, access token type, or extension parameter, the error code is used in conjunction with. Change controller: For standards-track RFCs, state "IETF". For others, give the name of the responsible party. Other details (e.g., postal address, e-mail address, home page URI) may also be included. Specification document(s): Reference to document that specifies the error code, preferably including a URI that can be used to retrieve a copy of the document. An indication of the relevant sections may also be included, but is not required.
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
