Yes, you are correct. Based on: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8392.html#section-9.1.1
It seems like all that is needed to correct this, is to ask the experts to repeat this process for "client_id". And no new document would be required. OS On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 12:44 PM Neil Madden <neil.e.mad...@gmail.com> wrote: > RFC8693 didn't register anything for CWT at all. Some other document has > registered scope for CWT and pointed at that RFC as the reference for some > reason. > > -- Neil > > On 24 Jan 2024, at 18:37, Orie Steele <orie@transmute.industries> wrote: > > I'm working on a document that has some similarity to EAT from RATS, in > that it is trying to enable JWT and CWT to be used for a use case. > > Is there a reason that RFC8693 registers "scope" and "client_id" for JWT, > but only "scope" for CWT ? > > - https://www.iana.org/assignments/jwt/jwt.xhtml > - https://www.iana.org/assignments/cwt/cwt.xhtml > > How can I use "client_id" in CWT ? > > OS > > -- > > ORIE STEELE > Chief Technology Officer > www.transmute.industries > <https://transmute.industries/> > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > > > -- ORIE STEELE Chief Technology Officer www.transmute.industries <https://transmute.industries>
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
