Core is up to 21 and RReg is up to 08 (back to editors' drafts)
Most issues were proactively closed because we had good consensus on substantive issue discussions and/or the issues were editorial
What was done (you've had this list since Monday):
#293: Check/fix all examples for missing required (and optional) fields; other editorial (the not-quite-editorial change to "flatten" the pushing of claim tokens so that a client pushes one claim token at a time; see Core Sec 3.6.1)
#294: Consider a proof-of-possession option for the RPT core security (see Core Sec 6.2)
#295: When a requesting party needs to withdraw their access core (see Core Sec 3.11)
#302: Typo in RReg source regarding the stylesheet editorial rsrc-reg (trivial; RReg didn't change substantively)
Your turn to yell (before the call) if you're not happy with this
#290 (Generality of RReg spec?) and #296 (Out-of-the-box profiling for tight AS-RS coupling): Should have a concrete proposal for discussion
#298 (Reconsider whether ticket should be on all redirect-back AS responses): a "flattened" claim token in native form-urlencoded format was implemented in Core Sec 3.6.3 -- didn't close this issue yet because only a relatively small subset of us discussed the recommendation, so let's review
#303 (Cleaning up the security considerations: JSON Usage): Possibly pass a quick eye over this one
New:#304 (Do we need the UMA error invalid_request?): Let's consider this
#297 (Add the authorization process flowchart or some other visual explanation): To be closed without action unless someone speaks up