Re: [OAUTH-WG] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6749 (7715)

Hi Roman, We are unable to verify this erratum that the submitter marked as editorial. Please note that we have changed the “Type” of the following errata report to “Technical”. As Stream Approver, please review and set the Status and Type accordingly (see the definitions at https://www.rfc-e

Re: [OAUTH-WG] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6749 (7716)

Hi Roman, We are unable to verify this erratum that the submitter marked as editorial. Please note that we have changed the “Type” of the following errata report to “Technical”. As Stream Approver, please review and set the Status and Type accordingly (see the definitions at https://www.rfc-e

Re: [OAUTH-WG] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8252 (7085)

Greetings, This erratum reports the same issue as was reported in errata report 5848 (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5848). As such, we have deleted this report. Please let us know any concerns. Thank you. RFC Editor/rv > On Aug 15, 2022, at 12:29 AM, RFC Errata System > wrote:

Re: [OAUTH-WG] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6749 (7823)

Hi Roman, We are unable to verify this erratum that the submitter marked as editorial, so we changed the Type to “Technical”. As Stream Approver, please review and set the Status and Type accordingly (see the definitions at https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata-definitions/). You may review the re

Re: [OAUTH-WG] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7519 (7893)

FYI - this report has been deleted as junk. Thank you. RFC Editor/rv > On Apr 15, 2024, at 9:55 AM, RFC Errata System > wrote: > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7519, > "JSON Web Token (JWT)". > > -- > You may review the report bel