That's what the "technical" vs "editorial" distinction is supposed to be for.
Barry On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 8:27 AM Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: iesg <iesg-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Benjamin Kaduk > > Sent: 31 May 2020 05:09 > > To: Pete Resnick <resn...@episteme.net> > > Cc: m...@microsoft.com; i...@ietf.org; ve7...@ve7jtb.com; > > hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net; oauth@ietf.org; RFC Errata System <rfc- > > edi...@rfc-editor.org> > > Subject: Re: [Errata Verified] RFC7800 (6187) > > > > The new text is clearly the right thing, and there is no need > > to debate it if/when the document gets updated. "Don't hold > > it; do it now", so to speak -- and noting that (my > > understanding/recollection of) the plan for > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/inline-errata/rfc7800.html is that only > > verified errata, not those in other states, will be displayed. > [RW] > > If this ends up being the plan, then I think that we may wish to modify the > RFC guidance, or possibly have two different verified states: > (i) Verified, could impact implementations > (ii) Verified, editorial only. > > Certainly, it seems to be makes sense for these sorts of errata to be > displayed. > > Regards, > Rob > > > > > > (Yes, that link 404s at the moment, I assume a caching issue.) > > > > -Ben > > > > On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 10:55:01PM -0500, Pete Resnick wrote: > > > "Verified", not "Hold For Document Update"? > > > > > > pr > > > > > > On 30 May 2020, at 20:34, RFC Errata System wrote: > > > > > > > The following errata report has been verified for RFC7800, > > > > "Proof-of-Possession Key Semantics for JSON Web Tokens (JWTs)". > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------- > > > > You may review the report below and at: > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6187 > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------- > > > > Status: Verified > > > > Type: Editorial > > > > > > > > Reported by: Pete Resnick <resn...@episteme.net> > > > > Date Reported: 2020-05-26 > > > > Verified by: Benjamin Kaduk (IESG) > > > > > > > > Section: 7.1 > > > > > > > > Original Text > > > > ------------- > > > > [JWK] Jones, M., "JSON Web Key (JWK)", RFC 7517, > > > > DOI 10.17487/RFC7157, May 2015, > > > > <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7517>. > > > > > > > > > > > > Corrected Text > > > > -------------- > > > > [JWK] Jones, M., "JSON Web Key (JWK)", RFC 7517, > > > > DOI 10.17487/RFC7517, May 2015, > > > > <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7517>. > > > > > > > > > > > > Notes > > > > ----- > > > > DOI has a typo: 7157 instead of 7517. > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------- > > > > RFC7800 (draft-ietf-oauth-proof-of-possession-11) > > > > -------------------------------------- > > > > Title : Proof-of-Possession Key Semantics for JSON Web > > > > Tokens (JWTs) > > > > Publication Date : April 2016 > > > > Author(s) : M. Jones, J. Bradley, H. Tschofenig > > > > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > > > > Source : Web Authorization Protocol > > > > Area : Security > > > > Stream : IETF > > > > Verifying Party : IESG > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/ > > > All connections to the world are tenuous at best > _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
