gt; To: Mike Jones
> Cc: Hannes Tschofenig; Eran Hammer; oauth@ietf.org WG (oauth@ietf.org)
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Section 7.2
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> this text below does not prohibit error information to be sent back to the
> client (otherwise there would be a MUST NOT).
>
&
Mike Jones
> Cc: Hannes Tschofenig; Eran Hammer; oauth@ietf.org WG (oauth@ietf.org)
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Section 7.2
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> I personally would find it better to have fewer SHOULDs. Most of them have
> been there for a long time and so it is a bit late to
OK - will do.
From: Eran Hammer
Sent: 6/16/2012 12:43 PM
To: Mike Jones; oauth@ietf.org WG (oauth@ietf.org)
Subject: RE: [OAUTH-WG] Section 7.2
I would rather these restrictions be in the error registry section below and
add a forward reference from 7.2.
EH
I would rather these restrictions be in the error registry section below and
add a forward reference from 7.2.
EH
From: Mike Jones [mailto:michael.jo...@microsoft.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2012 12:17 PM
To: Eran Hammer; oauth@ietf.org WG (oauth@ietf.org)
Subject: RE: [OAUTH-WG] Section 7.2
ammer [mailto:e...@hueniverse.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 11:32 PM
To: Mike Jones; oauth@ietf.org WG (oauth@ietf.org)
Subject: RE: [OAUTH-WG] Section 7.2
WFM.
This will be the new text for 7.2 unless someone has any additional feedback or
concerns.
This closes my issue with the new error regist
-Original Message-
From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net]
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 11:28 AM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: Hannes Tschofenig; Eran Hammer; oauth@ietf.org WG (oauth@ietf.org)
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Section 7.2
Hi Mike,
I personally would find it better to have fewer
you
> should apply these spelling corrections:
>desgined -> designed
>authentiction -> authentication
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Eran Hammer [mailto:e...@hueniverse.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 3:29 PM
> To: Eran Ha
+1
>
> From: Eran Hammer
>To: Mike Jones ; "oauth@ietf.org WG
>(oauth@ietf.org)"
>Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 11:32 PM
>Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Section 7.2
>
>
>
>WFM.
>
>This will be the new text for 7.2 u
@ietf.org)
Subject: RE: [OAUTH-WG] Section 7.2
Thanks for writing the text below. It looks fine to me. About adding the
other error parameters as suggestions, that seems like a reasonable thing to
do. How about the text at the end below, which adds mentions of
error_description and error_uri
Original Message-
From: Eran Hammer [mailto:e...@hueniverse.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 3:29 PM
To: Eran Hammer; Mike Jones; oauth@ietf.org WG (oauth@ietf.org)
Subject: RE: [OAUTH-WG] Section 7.2
Mike - if you want to add the other error parameters as suggestions, that would
be
uth@ietf.org WG (oauth@ietf.org)
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Section 7.2
>
> 7.2. Error Response
>
>If a resource access request fails, the resource server SHOULD inform
>the client of the error. While the specifics of such error responses
>are beyond the scope o
7.2. Error Response
If a resource access request fails, the resource server SHOULD inform
the client of the error. While the specifics of such error responses
are beyond the scope of this specification, this documents establishes
a common registry for error values to be shared among
That sounds fine to me. If you want to take a stab at proposed text, have at
it!
-- Mike
From: Eran Hammer
Sent: 6/14/2012 2:59 PM
To: oauth@ietf.org WG (oauth@ietf.org)
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Section 7.2
One simple solution is to define the new error location as
One simple solution is to define the new error location as an opt-in registry
for oauth-centric token authentication methods. Instead of requiring new
schemes to use it and deal with all the confusing qualifications, just narrowly
define the new registry as a service for new token authentication
14 matches
Mail list logo
