[Sorry, I didn't see this email before I sent my last one]
> Chairs - I would like to ask that you declare all discovery requirements and > use cases out of scope for v2 and the working group at this point. > > --- > > As for the error code registry and the request Mike posted, I do not think > your use case has much to do with the goal Mike has with his registry > proposal. Mike's proposal is for v2 to define an error registry for use with > an error attribute across different HTTP schemes such as Bearer and MAC, and > for that to make sense, we need to define an OAuth2 scheme that *replaces* > the Bearer and MAC schemes - something you agree we should not do. An error code is part of discovery - it lets a client app "discover" what it needs to do next to gain access. We can have separate discovery of fairly static server capabilities and endpoints and call that out of scope for v2. However, we still need dynamic discovery of which OAuth2 flow a client should do after a particular HTTP resource request fails. This is related to error codes so needs to be as in-scope as error codes are. Indicating which OAuth2 flow to perform should be OAuth2-specific, not kludged onto every (independent) authentication scheme. P.S. I still absolutely agree that we should NOT define one OAuth2 scheme that replaces Bearer and MAC. -- James Manger
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
