<div dir="ltr">Thanks. FAPI 1 seems to be referring to OIDC for private_key_jwt, so if OIDC updates in the same kind of timeframe, then that section gets fixed as well, posing the question of whether we should do it. There is an example later. That one needs to be fixed. </div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, 4 Dec 2024 at 23:18, dgtonge via Openid-specs-fapi <<a href="mailto:openid-specs-fapi@lists.openid.net">openid-specs-fapi@lists.openid.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">New issue 726: Private key jwt aud restrictions<br>
<a href="https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/issues/726/private-key-jwt-aud-restrictions" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/issues/726/private-key-jwt-aud-restrictions</a><br>
<br>
Dave Tonge:<br>
<br>
Bring the same language from fapi2 to fapi1 errata<br>
<br>
Responsible: Dave Tonge<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Openid-specs-fapi mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Openid-specs-fapi@lists.openid.net" target="_blank">Openid-specs-fapi@lists.openid.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-fapi" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-fapi</a><br>
</blockquote></div>