Meiling, Blake, Confirming Blake's finding against -03 from an independent read, since it is the kind of defect that survives a version bump quietly.
In Section 4.2.4, the UC8 "What's Missing" heading renders as two literal asterisks with no colon. The consequence is not cosmetic: the three gap bullets beneath it lose their label, so a reviewer landing in UC8 sees three unattributed bullets and no statement of what they are gaps against. It is the only one of the eleven use cases in the document where this happens, which is what makes it easy to miss in a diff review. Two suggestions, both cheap: 1. The tracker issue should record the rendered symptom, not just the source fix, so that closing it requires re-rendering rather than re-editing. 2. Since the -03 announcement lists nine issues as resolved (#15-20, #26-28), it would help reviewers if the next revision included a short "verified in rendered output" note for heading and table changes. The class of defect here is a source-to-render mismatch, and issue closure against source alone will not catch it. I run xml2rfc plus idnits in CI on my own drafts specifically to fail on unlabeled headings and stale front-matter dates. If it is useful to the authors I am glad to share the gate configuration off-list. On Wednesday, August 26, 2026 at 10:56 AM UTC, [email protected] wrote: Hi Meiling, Both gaps are in the repo now so nothing is outstanding on the dangling requirements. Thanks for opening 28. One thing survived the fix and it is in -03. In 4.2.4, UC8's What's Missing heading renders as two literal asterisks with no colon, so the three gap bullets under it lose their label. It is the only one of the eleven in the document that does. I'll raise it on the tracker rather than here per your request. Best, Blake On Thursday, 20 August 2026 at 1:26 AM, Meiling Chen wrote: > Hi Blake, > > Thank you so much for taking the time to review the draft. Your identification of the dangling requirements in UC8 and UC9, along with the formatting errors, was spot-on and extremely helpful. This is exactly the kind of detailed feedback that makes the document stronger. > > We also want to take this opportunity to say that we warmly welcome this kind of review from everyone in the community. The more eyes we have on the draft, the better the final result will be, so please feel encouraged to share your thoughts at any time. > > In your email, you mentioned that you could open these as issues. That would be incredibly helpful, and we would like to encourage this for any future feedback you or others might have. > > For the specific points you've already raised, I am happy to open the issues on your behalf, crediting your feedback, so you don't have to do the work twice. Going forward, if you or anyone else spots an issue, creating a ticket on the repository would be the most effective way to help us address it. > > You can find the issues page here: > > https://nam09.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FMaisy-ML%2FAgent-Authorization-Use-Cases%2Fissues%2F28&data=05%7C02%7Cbvicente%40sanctumsecops.com%7Cf2b5a6accde444d0198f08df0360adf2%7C2a93bdd1b2dd4327b52667840d763136%7C0%7C0%7C639233385927056829%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=WbGB8suvImfPWf3l6s79PyyCR68%2F6swM%2F5PC8Y3KcbU%3D&reserved=0 > > Thank you again for helping improve the quality of the document. > > Best > > Meiling > > [email protected] _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
