Re: [OAUTH-WG] [Errata Verified] RFC7800 (6187)

["Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]>
> Sent: 01 June 2020 14:16
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>; Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; RFC Errata System <rfc-
> [e-mail]>
> 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=[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: iesg <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Benjamin Kaduk
> > > Sent: 31 May 2020 05:09
> > > To: Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>
> > > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> > > [e-mail]; [e-mail]; RFC Errata System <rfc-
> > > [e-mail]>
> > > 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 <[e-mail]>
> > > > > 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
> >