Interesting. There is an issue from May 2024 that talks about it, but it is not assigned to anyone and still open: https://github.com/ietf-tools/rfc2html/issues/38
I'm not sure creating another issue is going to help. On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 9:04 AM Rebecca VanRheenen < rvanrhee...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > Justin is correct. This issue is with the rfc2html output. We have thus > rejected this erratum report. > > Atul, if you like, you may add an issue here: > https://github.com/ietf-tools/rfc2html. > > Thank you, > > Rebecca VanRheenen > RFC Production Center > > > > > On Aug 28, 2025, at 7:25 AM, Justin Richer <jric...@mit.edu> wrote: > > > > This is a long known error in the tooling that creates the HTMLized > versions of older specs, and is not specific to this specification. I > believe this errata should be rejected as there is no change to the > underlying text that would fix the tooling. > > > > — Justin > > > >> On Aug 27, 2025, at 3:32 PM, RFC Errata System < > rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> wrote: > >> > >> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7591, > >> "OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration Protocol". > >> > >> -------------------------------------- > >> You may review the report below and at: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8557 > >> > >> -------------------------------------- > >> Type: Editorial > >> Reported by: Atul Tulshibagwale <a...@sgnl.ai> > >> > >> Section: 2 > >> > >> Original Text > >> ------------- > >> As required by [Section 2]( > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7591#section-2) of OAuth 2.0 > [[RFC6749](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6749)] > >> > >> Corrected Text > >> -------------- > >> As required by [Section 2]( > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6749#section-2) of OAuth 2.0 > [[RFC6749](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6749)] > >> > >> Notes > >> ----- > >> In section 2 of RFC 7591, the links to sections 2, 2.1, 2.3.1, 4.1, > 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, and 6 are incorrectly pointing to sections within > RFC7591. They should be pointing to the corresponding sections in RFC 6749. > The link to sections 2.3.1, 4.3, and 4.4 are actually broken, because those > sections do not exist in RFC 7591 > >> > >> Instructions: > >> ------------- > >> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". (If it is spam, it > >> will be removed shortly by the RFC Production Center.) Please > >> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > >> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party > >> will log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > >> > >> -------------------------------------- > >> RFC7591 (draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-30) > >> -------------------------------------- > >> Title : OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration Protocol > >> Publication Date : July 2015 > >> Author(s) : J. Richer, Ed., M. Jones, J. Bradley, M. > Machulak, P. Hunt > >> Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > >> Source : Web Authorization Protocol > >> Stream : IETF > >> Verifying Party : IESG > > > >
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list -- oauth@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to oauth-le...@ietf.org
