We might be able to combine these, but to me it really does make sense to have one registry for OAuth 2 core extensions to the frameowrk and one for the auth profiles. The downside of this would be duplication between the two. If we think there will be significant overlap then I think they should be merged, if they are mostly distinct then I would somewhat prefer separate registries but I can live with either.
My tuppence. -bill ----- Original Message ----- > From: Mike Jones <michael.jo...@microsoft.com> > To: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net> > Cc: "oauth@ietf.org WG" <oauth@ietf.org> > Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 2:40 PM > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Error Registry: Conclusion > > Hi Hannes, > > You stated a preference for separate registries below, but that was a larger > change to the OAuth Core spec than the current draft, which added a fourth > error > usage location "resource access error response" to the registry. To > my knowledge, the consensus call didn't ask people to express a preference > between having four separate OAuth Errors registries versus one OAuth Errors > registry allowing any combination of a set of four usage locations to be > specified. > > Given that the two choices are completely equivalent, and we had previously > established the single OAuth Errors registry with three possible usage > locations, extending it to a fourth seemed to be both more natural and easier > for people to understand. > > Therefore, I'd like to ask you to withdraw your suggestion and allow the > existing structure of the OAuth Errors registry to remain. > > Thank you, > -- Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Hannes > Tschofenig > Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 2:27 PM > To: oauth@ietf.org WG > Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Error Registry: Conclusion > > Hi all, > > on May 8th we called for consensus on an open issue regarding the location of > the error registry. Here is the call for comments: > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg08952.html. > > Thank you all for the feedback. The consensus is to create the registry in > the > core document. > > Section 11.4.1 already sort-of creates sub-registries to illustrate where the > different errors can be used. This is needed since some of the errors may > only > appear in certain error responses. Hence, we need add another one to this > list > (suggestion: 'resource access error response'). In fact, I would prefer > IANA to create separate tables for each of these sub-registries to avoid > confusion for the reader (instead of putting everything into a single table). > > We believe that these changes are really minor and address IESG feedback. > > Ciao > Hannes & Derek > > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
