It’s definitely a mistake, and I think an errata is the right track for it. Not positive though — chairs?
— Justin > On Jun 20, 2016, at 5:02 PM, Brian Campbell <bcampb...@pingidentity.com> > wrote: > > Some good irony in that message as I made a very similar mistake. The "IANA > Considerations RFC 7591 / Token Introspection" link/text should say "IANA > Considerations RFC 7591 / Client Registration > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7591#section-4.1>". > > Sigh. > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Brian Campbell <bcampb...@pingidentity.com > <mailto:bcampb...@pingidentity.com>> wrote: > Because of my earlier message about act and may_act also being registered for > Introspection Endpoint responses > <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg16429.html> I was > looking at the IANA Considerations of RFC 7662 and it seems like some text in > the 2nd paragraph of Sec 3.1 > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7662#section-3.1> was inadvertently copied > from the IANA Considerations RFC 7591 / Token Introspection > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7591#section-4.1> and not changed to match > the new context. > > The text in Token Introspection says, "OAuth registration client metadata > names and descriptions are registered..." which doesn't seem right. I'd > expect it to say something like, "OAuth token introspection response > parameters are registered...". > > Is this the sort of thing that should be reported as errata? > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
