There are two separate issues here which Mike's latest draft conflated into one.
Issues 1:
The v2 specification currently does not allow for defining additional error
codes to the authorization and token endpoints. The only way to define
additional error codes is by updating the RFC (once publi
I'm still not understanding why each RFC (e.g. the bearer spec) can't define
its own error codes. If you were to support the bearer token RFC, then you
obviously understand the normative errors. I'm just not getting what the value
of a central "OAuth" registry is.
An OAuth registry also unnec
That's what I did for MAC. However, this thread is about the v2 spec.
EHL
On Mar 21, 2011, at 16:38, "Manger, James H"
mailto:james.h.man...@team.telstra.com>> wrote:
The bearer spec defines 3 errors (invalid_request, invalid_token,
insufficient_scope), which accompany 3 different status codes
The bearer spec defines 3 errors (invalid_request, invalid_token,
insufficient_scope), which accompany 3 different status codes (400 Bad request,
401 Unauthorized, 403 Forbidden respectively).
Client apps are probably better off switching behaviour based on the HTTP
status code, and ignoring th
I don't believe there is consensus yet. Many of us have not voted and/or don't
agree with the options presented.
Phil
phil.h...@oracle.com
On 2011-03-21, at 9:48 AM, Mike Jones wrote:
> People voted as follows in the poll I conducted on the OAuth Errors Registry:
>
> For A:
>
+1
Phil
phil.h...@oracle.com
On 2011-03-21, at 8:50 AM, George Fletcher wrote:
> +1
>
> On 3/11/11 2:56 AM, tors...@lodderstedt.net wrote:
>>
>> Why not "bearer_token"? This would be in line with the Authorization scheme
>> name.
>>
>> regards,
>> Torsten.
>> Gesendet mit BlackBerry® Webm
You call this consensus? David Recordon was raising concerns about the proposal
and Justin Richter agreed to registry alternatives. So no, this is not
sufficient to make changes yet.
I do see a need to extend the error code set in case of extensions which modify
the behavior of the authorizatio
People voted as follows in the poll I conducted on the OAuth Errors Registry:
For A:
Mike Jones
Igor Faynberg
Justin Richter
Anthony Nadalin
For D or C:
Eran Hammer-Lahav
William Mills
Given that twic
+1
On 3/11/11 2:56 AM, tors...@lodderstedt.net wrote:
Why not "bearer_token"? This would be in line with the Authorization scheme
name.
regards,
Torsten.
Gesendet mit BlackBerry® Webmail von Telekom Deutschland
-Original Message-
From: Mike Jones
Sender: oauth-boun...@ietf.org
Date: F
