Script updating archive at 2023-08-27T00:46:36Z. [ci skip]

archive.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "magic": "E!vIA5L86J2I",
-  "timestamp": "2023-08-22T00:43:33.256319+00:00",
+  "timestamp": "2023-08-27T00:46:33.785502+00:00",
   "repo": "oauth-wg/oauth-v2-1",
   "labels": [
     {
@@ -3722,6 +3722,22 @@
       "updatedAt": "2023-08-15T15:04:55Z",
       "closedAt": null,
       "comments": []
+    },
+    {
+      "number": 164,
+      "id": "I_kwDODkfq5s5vJOhS",
+      "title": "Use of 'permissions' term in refresh token section",
+      "url": "https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-v2-1/issues/164",
+      "state": "OPEN",
+      "author": "jogu",
+      "authorAssociation": "NONE",
+      "assignees": [],
+      "labels": [],
+      "body": "https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-oauth-v2-1-09.html#section-1.3.2 says:\r\n\r\n> access tokens may have a shorter lifetime and fewer permissions than authorized by the resource owner\r\n\r\nI've recently had some in depth conversations about what \"permissions\" here means. This is the only use of 'permissions' [in this way] in the whole document, and I don't think there's some special thing that's different in the refresh token grant that means we should be using a different word. I think it might be a small improvement to use the same terms as used elsewhere in the document - other words that are already used are \"access range\", \"scopes\", \"scope-token\" and \"privileges\".\r\n\r\nChanging \"permissions\" to \"privileges\" seems like it would probably be the most consistent with the rest of the spec.",
+      "createdAt": "2023-08-24T08:43:05Z",
+      "updatedAt": "2023-08-24T08:43:05Z",
+      "closedAt": null,
+      "comments": []
     }
   ],
   "pulls": [