I agree that the change in text is too much for an errata. But I am
sympathetic to the problem that the reporter has described. Perhaps it'd be
appropriate as an errata that, in the interest of interoperability,
mentions/reminds that 'iat' doesn't have defined semantics about rejection
and
niedz., 3 gru 2023, 11:43 użytkownik Justin Richer
napisał:
> This errata should be rejected, as stated in the write up, the change in
> text is too much for an errata. If the WG wants to revise JWT at this level
> it should be a full bis document.
>
> It's worth noting that the two other time
