Okay, so the distinction is already there. As the errata rules are written then I would have done the same as Pete suggested and marked this as HFDU under point (2) of https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/processing-rfc-errata/.
However, I also take Ben's point that it would be useful if this errata showed up inline (as per https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/inline-errata/rfc7800.html), which is why I think that we might want to change the guidance for point (2) so that they become verified (editorial) rather than HFDU. Regards, Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Barry Leiba <barryle...@computer.org> > Sent: 01 June 2020 14:16 > To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwil...@cisco.com> > Cc: Benjamin Kaduk <ka...@mit.edu>; Pete Resnick <resn...@episteme.net>; > 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) > > 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
