Re: [OAUTH-WG] Closing a few issues

>> 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)? ... > The main reason for allowing this kind

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Closing a few issues

Hi Alexey, > -Original Message- > From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Alexey Melnikov > Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 4:17 AM > >#10 8.4. Defining Additional Error Codes > >http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/oauth/trac/ticket/10 > > > > > This is mostly f

Re: [OAUTH-WG] [oauth] #10: 8.4. Defining Additional Error Codes

#10: 8.4. Defining Additional Error Codes Comment(by barryleiba@…): Comment from Alexey: 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"

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Closing a few issues

> #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 I will close these later today, as I said in my original note: http:/