[OAUTH-WG] nit RFC 7662 Errata?

[Brian Campbell]

Because of my earlier message about act and may_act also being registered
for Introspection Endpoint responses
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg16429.html> I was
looking at the IANA Considerations of RFC 7662 and it seems like some text
in the 2nd paragraph of Sec 3.1
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7662#section-3.1> was inadvertently copied
from the IANA Considerations RFC 7591 / Token Introspection
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7591#section-4.1> and not changed to match
the new context.

The text in Token Introspection says, "OAuth registration client metadata
names and descriptions are registered..." which doesn't seem right. I'd
expect it to say something like, "OAuth token introspection response
parameters are registered...".

Is this the sort of thing that should be reported as errata?

[Brian Campbell]

Some good irony in that message as I made a very similar mistake. The "IANA
Considerations RFC 7591 / Token Introspection" link/text should say "IANA
Considerations RFC 7591 / Client Registration
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7591#section-4.1>".

Sigh.

Post by Brian Campbell
Because of my earlier message about act and may_act also being registered
for Introspection Endpoint responses
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg16429.html> I was
looking at the IANA Considerations of RFC 7662 and it seems like some text
in the 2nd paragraph of Sec 3.1
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7662#section-3.1> was inadvertently
copied from the IANA Considerations RFC 7591 / Token Introspection
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7591#section-4.1> and not changed to
match the new context.
The text in Token Introspection says, "OAuth registration client metadata
names and descriptions are registered..." which doesn't seem right. I'd
expect it to say something like, "OAuth token introspection response
parameters are registered...".
Is this the sort of thing that should be reported as errata?

[Justin Richer]

It’s definitely a mistake, and I think an errata is the right track for it. Not positive though — chairs?

— Justin

Some good irony in that message as I made a very similar mistake. The "IANA Considerations RFC 7591 / Token Introspection" link/text should say "IANA Considerations RFC 7591 / Client Registration <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7591#section-4.1>".
Sigh.
Because of my earlier message about act and may_act also being registered for Introspection Endpoint responses <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg16429.html> I was looking at the IANA Considerations of RFC 7662 and it seems like some text in the 2nd paragraph of Sec 3.1 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7662#section-3.1> was inadvertently copied from the IANA Considerations RFC 7591 / Token Introspection <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7591#section-4.1> and not changed to match the new context.
The text in Token Introspection says, "OAuth registration client metadata names and descriptions are registered..." which doesn't seem right. I'd expect it to say something like, "OAuth token introspection response parameters are registered...".
Is this the sort of thing that should be reported as errata?
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth