On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 12:04:47AM +, Dave Isaacs wrote:
> Fair enough, I guess. The HTML versions of the older RFCs must be peppered
> with bad links if this is the case.
Yes, that is true, and we get some periodic errata reports of this nature
as well.
I marked this report as rejected per
The following errata report has been rejected for RFC7591,
"OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration Protocol".
--
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6619
--
Status: Rejected
Type: Edito
This looks correct to me; could the authors/WG please confirm?
Thanks,
Ben
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 12:04:37PM -0700, RFC Errata System wrote:
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6749,
> "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework".
>
> --
> You
Htmlized legacy RFCs are created by a script that uses heuristics to add
formatting to the canonical text document. One of the limitations of the
script is that it does not know when a section link is to another
document.
For RFCs published since we switched to XML v3 two years ago, the HTML i
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7591,
"OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration Protocol".
--
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6619
--
Type: Editorial
Reported by
