Agree on a single registry
From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
George Fletcher
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 4:56 PM
To: Hannes Tschofenig
Cc: oauth@ietf.org WG
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Error Registry Consensus Call
I agree that one registry is desired!
On 5/7
I agree that one registry is desired!
On 5/7/12 7:19 PM, John Bradley wrote:
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 concernin
I prefer single repository.
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 12:48 AM, 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
I am in favor of making it part of the base Oauth 2 spec, rather than defining
this in a single token draft. It seems something that SHOULD be part of the
framework.
There's a 3rd option which would be to have a separate doc, but that seems a
kludge.
-bill
>_
e one review
mailing list.
EH
> -Original Message-
> From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of John Bradley
> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 4:20 PM
> To: Hannes Tschofenig
> Cc: oauth@ietf.org WG
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Error Regi
mmer; Hannes Tschofenig; oauth@ietf.org WG
> Subject: RE: [OAUTH-WG] Error Registry Consensus Call
>
> The bearer spec is not intended as a general purpose HTTP Auth scheme.
> Note that it includes a "scope" response, which firmly anchors it to use with
> OAuth, where it provides
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
-end OAuth protocol usage flows.
These are OAuth-specific errors.
-Original Message-
From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Eran
Hammer
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 4:07 PM
To: Hannes Tschofenig; oauth@ietf.org WG
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Error Registry Consens
A.
For the following reasons (all extensively discussed on this list before):
1. The OAuth core specification has nothing to do with HTTP authentication
schemes.
2. The bearer specification is a general purpose HTTP Auth scheme and defining
such a registry needs to be defined within those bound
b) - a single OAuth errors registry for all of exchanges A-F of the protocol
-Original Message-
From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Hannes Tschofenig
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 3:48 PM
To: oauth@ietf.org WG
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Error Registry Consensu
10 matches
Mail list logo
