Hi Barry, Barry Leiba wrote:
There are three issues in the tracker that are just looking for consensus on text that's in the document -- Eran had flagged them as "pending consensus" in the -15 version. Let's look at closing those issues now. The issues are #8 4.1.2.1 and 4.2.2.1, text for 4xx or 5xx HTTP status code http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/oauth/trac/ticket/8 #9 5.2, text for non-400 & 401 error conditions http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/oauth/trac/ticket/9
These look fine to me.
#10 8.4. Defining Additional Error Codes http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/oauth/trac/ticket/10
This is mostly fine, but I am wondering if the ACAP vendor name registry (RFC 6075), the OID vendor names, or DNS names can be recommended for the prefix (to satisfy the "SHOULD be prefixed by an identifying name when possible" requirement)? Best Regards, Alexey -- Internet Messaging Team Lead, <http://www.isode.com> JID: same as my email address twitter: aamelnikov _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
