Script updating archive at 2025-10-21T00:18:31Z. [ci skip]

Author: ID Bot

archive.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "magic": "E!vIA5L86J2I",
-  "timestamp": "2025-10-19T00:20:34.386020+00:00",
+  "timestamp": "2025-10-21T00:18:29.510371+00:00",
   "repo": "oauth-wg/oauth-transaction-tokens",
   "labels": [
     {
@@ -13621,7 +13621,7 @@
       "labels": [],
       "body": "Attempt at simplifying both client and server authentication requirements throughout the draft (see #198, #198 and #218)",
       "createdAt": "2025-09-01T18:17:23Z",
-      "updatedAt": "2025-10-16T14:01:43Z",
+      "updatedAt": "2025-10-19T18:48:57Z",
       "baseRepository": "oauth-wg/oauth-transaction-tokens",
       "baseRefName": "main",
       "baseRefOid": "7a3099a56cca3a6e4ecbed3b41c9f36aabca5aec",
@@ -13979,6 +13979,26 @@
               "updatedAt": "2025-09-15T18:00:50Z"
             }
           ]
+        },
+        {
+          "id": "PRR_kwDOJt_WwM7H85eW",
+          "commit": {
+            "abbreviatedOid": "28dce73"
+          },
+          "author": "bc-pi",
+          "authorAssociation": "CONTRIBUTOR",
+          "state": "COMMENTED",
+          "body": "",
+          "createdAt": "2025-10-19T18:48:57Z",
+          "updatedAt": "2025-10-19T18:48:57Z",
+          "comments": [
+            {
+              "originalPosition": 73,
+              "body": "from #198 and email that begat it, this is my comment about this text that I don't think this change fully addresses.\r\n\r\n> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-oauth-transaction-tokens-06#name-client-authentication\r\nThe first sentence is redundant with OAuth 2.0 Token Exchange itself. Sometimes restating things is worthwhile but I don't think that's the case here.\r\nThe second sentence with \"the actor_token MUST authenticate the identity of the requesting workload\" seems overly restrictive. What if the authentication has happened via other means and the actor_token is there to convey some other notion of delegation or something?\r\nThere's a lot more to \"Client Authentication\", the section name, than these two sentences. Consider something different. Or something.\r\n\r\n\r\nmy preference of \"can\" vs a big MUST/MAY here is just about not (over)using the RFC2119 keywords when they don't really do anything useful  \r\n",
+              "createdAt": "2025-10-19T18:48:57Z",
+              "updatedAt": "2025-10-19T18:48:57Z"
+            }
+          ]
         }
       ]
     },
@@ -15244,13 +15264,13 @@
       "labels": [],
       "body": "See #214",
       "createdAt": "2025-09-18T11:13:03Z",
-      "updatedAt": "2025-10-08T23:25:41Z",
+      "updatedAt": "2025-10-20T14:36:44Z",
       "baseRepository": "oauth-wg/oauth-transaction-tokens",
       "baseRefName": "main",
-      "baseRefOid": "e998a30fee2c437a424d8bd1884e57eceb35ecf9",
+      "baseRefOid": "f5881a6d011e6cfa65557b1b7efcf4fbb5ef6dea",
       "headRepository": "oauth-wg/oauth-transaction-tokens",
       "headRefName": "PieterKas-patch-8",
-      "headRefOid": "be59dd7967f00f8ae149cd466736ce1d36bd5086",
+      "headRefOid": "4d21d29e508b1e31badd0df24b61b7b40e3ccb7a",
       "closedAt": null,
       "mergedAt": null,
       "mergedBy": null,