I believe this errata should be verified, if that wasn't clear from my
prior message. The errata process remains somewhat opaque to me, however,
so I'm not sure what happens next. But I don't think anything is needed
from your side at this point.
On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 4:22 AM Tomasz Kuczyński <
t
It took some time since the last message in the thread. Could you please
let me know if there is any additional information or action required
from my side for the verification process? Or is it simply a matter of
waiting for the process to complete?
Best regards
Tomasz Kuczyński
W dniu 30.05
I suspect a variety of not-entirely-improbable rational could be provided
to explain why it might make sense. But the reality is that it's just a
mistake in the document where somewhere along the way updates were made to
the examples that didn't fully align with content already in those
examples. I
The introspection response should rather reflect facts related to the
access token sent for the introspection. So even in case, a new
authentication event took place after the token issuance, it should not
be included in the response as the authentication event is not related
to the introspecte
This seems to be logical - the authentication event would always be before the
token was issued in the usual case. However, assuming that the AS "upgrades" an
existing token in-place during a step up, isn't it possible for the latest
relevant authentication event to come after the token was init
