As much as I agree that suggesting a pronunciation in a spec like this is silly, I believe the errata should be rejected as the text was agreed upon by the WG as it stands. This is not an error, but rather a stylistic disagreement from the reporter.
-Justin ________________________________ From: OAuth <oauth-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of RFC Errata System <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2024 9:53 PM To: adelcam...@gmail.com <adelcam...@gmail.com>; m...@microsoft.com <m...@microsoft.com>; ve7...@ve7jtb.com <ve7...@ve7jtb.com>; n-sakim...@nri.co.jp <n-sakim...@nri.co.jp> Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>; i...@ietf.org <i...@ietf.org>; oauth@ietf.org <oauth@ietf.org> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] [Errata Rejected] RFC7519 (5648) The following errata report has been rejected for RFC7519, "JSON Web Token (JWT)". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5648 -------------------------------------- Status: Rejected Type: Editorial Reported by: Andy Delcambre <adelcam...@gmail.com> Date Reported: 2019-03-08 Rejected by: Roman Danyliw (IESG) Section: 1 Original Text ------------- JSON Web Token (JWT) is a compact claims representation format intended for space constrained environments such as HTTP Authorization headers and URI query parameters. JWTs encode claims to be transmitted as a JSON [RFC7159] object that is used as the payload of a JSON Web Signature (JWS) [JWS] structure or as the plaintext of a JSON Web Encryption (JWE) [JWE] structure, enabling the claims to be digitally signed or integrity protected with a Message Authentication Code (MAC) and/or encrypted. JWTs are always represented using the JWS Compact Serialization or the JWE Compact Serialization. The suggested pronunciation of JWT is the same as the English word "jot". Corrected Text -------------- JSON Web Token (JWT) is a compact claims representation format intended for space constrained environments such as HTTP Authorization headers and URI query parameters. JWTs encode claims to be transmitted as a JSON [RFC7159] object that is used as the payload of a JSON Web Signature (JWS) [JWS] structure or as the plaintext of a JSON Web Encryption (JWE) [JWE] structure, enabling the claims to be digitally signed or integrity protected with a Message Authentication Code (MAC) and/or encrypted. JWTs are always represented using the JWS Compact Serialization or the JWE Compact Serialization. Notes ----- The suggested pronunciation is strange and confusing. It makes it hard to onboard new people verbally and always requires an explanation of the pronunciation. The standard already has a perfectly reasonable initialism of JWT that clearly refers to JSON Web Tokens. It is jarring to suggest a pronunciation that does not map to the letters of the spec, and in my experience often leads to confusion when used. --VERIFIER NOTES-- This guidance was produced with the consensus of the WG. Per https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/processing-errata-ietf-stream/, "Errata are items that were errors at the time the document was published" -------------------------------------- RFC7519 (draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token-32) -------------------------------------- Title : JSON Web Token (JWT) Publication Date : May 2015 Author(s) : M. Jones, J. Bradley, N. Sakimura Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Web Authorization Protocol Area : Security Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
