Re: [OAUTH-WG] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6749 (6613)

2021-06-25 Thread Justin Richer
I personally agree with this report, the new proposed wording is better. OAuth 2.1 editors, please take note! — Justin > On Jun 22, 2021, at 8:01 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > > This looks correct to me; could the authors/WG please confirm? > > Thanks, > > Ben > > On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 12:

Re: [OAUTH-WG] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6749 (6613)

2021-06-22 Thread Benjamin Kaduk
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

[OAUTH-WG] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6749 (6613)

2021-06-17 Thread RFC Errata System
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6749, "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework". -- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6613 -- Type: Editorial Reported by: Daniel