Its a good suggestion. Curious if you’ll get any reaction. > On Mar 8, 2019, at 3:33 PM, RFC Errata System <[email protected]> > wrote: > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7519, > "JSON Web Token (JWT)". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5648 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Editorial > Reported by: Andy Delcambre <[email protected]> > > 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. > > Instructions: > ------------- > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > > -------------------------------------- > 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 > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
