b) Unless we remove the OAuth specific errors from bearer it should be in oath-v2.
One registry is preferable. John B. On 2012-05-07, at 6:48 PM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: > Hi all, > > there is an open issue concerning draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-19 that may > impact draft-ietf-oauth-v2-26 (depending on it's resolution) and we would > like to get feedback from the working group about it. > > Here is the issue: When a client makes an access to a protected resources > then things may go wrong and an error may be returned in response. > draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer talks about this behavior. > > That's great but these error codes need to be registered somewhere. Note that > the registry can be created in one document while the values can be > registered by many documents. > > So, where should the registry be? > > There are two choices. > > a) A new OAuth errors registry goes into draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer. > > b) draft-ietf-oauth-v2 expands the scope of the existing OAuth Errors > registry to encompass errors returned from resource servers. > > Currently, draft-ietf-oauth-v2 creates registries for error codes only for > the exchanges from A-to-D (symbols used from Figure 1 of > draft-ietf-oauth-v2), but excludes registration of errors from flows E-F. > > We must create a registry for error codes from flows E-F. In which document > do we want to create this registry? > > So, give us your feedback whether you have a preference by the end of the > week. > > Ciao > Hannes & Derek > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
