> Am 19.07.2022 um 18:23 schrieb Brian Campbell :
>
> The correction is attempting to remove some potential ambiguity that has been
> interpreted as JAR's requirement for "client_id" not being applicable in the
> context JAR over PAR.
I unterstand.If it has caused confusion already, we
The correction is attempting to remove some potential ambiguity that has
been interpreted as JAR's requirement for "client_id" not being applicable
in the context JAR over PAR.
Maybe it should have been an editorial errata rather than technical.
On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 7:44 AM Torsten
Thanks Filip, and yes I agree that request and client_id parameter names should
be quoted in the corrected text. As should
"application/x-www-form-urlencoded". Corrected corrected text is below. I
believe someone with more authority would need to edit the errata while
verifying.
Corrected Text
I too believe the Errata should be verified. (Although I think the
parameter names request and client_id should be in quotes in the corrected
text?).
S pozdravem,
*Filip Skokan*
On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 at 15:44, Torsten Lodderstedt
wrote:
> I’m not sure this requires an update. It basically says
I’m not sure this requires an update. It basically says „stick the uri you get
from step 1 into this parameter in step 2“. Does this really require use to
re-state any further requirements of a proper JAR?
> Am 19.07.2022 um 15:15 schrieb Rifaat Shekh-Yusef :
>
> + Roman and Paul
>
> On Mon,
+ Roman and Paul
On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 12:25 PM Brian Campbell
wrote:
> I believe this should be verified. I'm also the one that reported it
> though. But it's been sitting in reported status for a while now.
>
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 1:38 PM RFC Errata System <
> rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>
