Original text:
The claim value object MUST contain a "typ" (type) attribute with a string based value that represents the type of status list referenced.  The value MUST be equal to that of the "typ" <del> attribute in the "status" claim for the token who's status is being validated. </del>  The claim value object MUST contain a "lst" (list) attribute with a string based value that represents the status values for all the <del> tokens it conveys statuses for.  The value MUST be a base64 encoded string using RFCXXX containing a GZIP compressed octet string RFC1952. </del>  <del> 3.3. </del>  This document formally defines the "revocation-list" status list type which applies the following additional validation rules beyond those <del> described in jwt-format-and-processing and jwt-status-list-format- and-processing. </del>  The "uri" attribute contained within a JWT using the "status" claim MUST be an HTTPS based URL that when resolved via an HTTPS GET

Reviewer comments:
NAME Whats' failing on the build here?
breaks the build All RFC references are resolved interally and linked
There are possible applications of this draft that go beyond just verifiable credentials, hence we do not want to use that term in this draft IMO. "Token" is already a term broadly used in this space e.g CWT and JWT both use it, "subject" was used in this context because it is also a term used heavily w.r.t tokens, feel free to suggest alternative terminology but at this point I think subject token is the best I've heard suggested.
can we simply use JWT/CWT instead of creating any kind of abstraction term like ? One person i asked for feedback associated with a token used to communicate a subject of an email.
or, bottomline, please stick to . is very confusing.
I'm with Tobias on this and prefer introducing a new term here. Otherwise things get really weird because the status list is also a JWT/CWT and a token. We need something that clearly separated the status list token and the other token. I think subject token is the best we have. Also subject is leaving towards what we have as credentialSubject in the VC world, so the term subject is kind of established in this context
I am really strongly against "Subject Token". Not only because it is not intuitive (I have been asking various people in this space and no one would associate what it trying to be conveyed), but we should not be introducing a new term in this already confusing ecosystem. Moreover, this status list mechanism can be used with a JWT/CWT that does not necessarily contain a subject (like SD-JWT-VC), so using a term subject because it is widely used is not a sufficient reason. Keep referring to it as a token, because this draft should not be opinionated about what is in the JWT/CWT whose status is being expressed should be fine, if a "status list JWT/CWT" is always referred as such. there are multiple occurrences where "status list JWT" is referred to simply as a JWT which should be fixed IMO.
We need clear terminology for: the status list token (i think this one fits pretty well) the credential / token that is bound to the status list I do believe only calling it token will cause confusion with the status list token. We can also call it something else like credential if we do a proper introduction of the term in the beginning?
Why call "status list token" and not "status list JWT/CWT"?
agreed on call: rename Status List to Status List Token introduce Status List for the actual bitarray rename Subject Token to Referenced Token remove Status List Provider for now and introduce it later if neccessary
btw sd-jwt vc spec mentions status provider :)
NAME NAME can you approve this PR?
Hi, thinking more about this, status list Token is being referenced in the token-whose-name-we-are-trying-to-find, so it's the status list token that is actually a "referenced token". Can we call token-whose-name-we-are-trying-to-find "a Token with reference"?
Yes, I agree and had the same thoughts when I changed the PR. I assume Referencing Token could be better. But let's accept this PR and move discussion to an issue instead...
Multiple approvals and discussions on editors calls, merging
opened issue to continue the terminology discussionok. Then please migrate the TODOs afterwards.

Revised text:
The claim value object MUST contain a "typ" (type) attribute with a string based value that represents the type of status list referenced.  The value MUST be equal to that of the "typ"  <ins> attribute in the "status" claim for the Referenced Token who's status is being validated. </ins> The claim value object MUST contain a "lst" (list) attribute with a string based value that represents the status values for all the  <ins> Referenced Tokens it conveys statuses for.  The value MUST be a base64 encoded string using RFCXXX containing a GZIP compressed octet string RFC1952. </ins>  <ins> 4.3. </ins> This document formally defines the "revocation-list" status list type which applies the following additional validation rules beyond those  <ins> described in jwt-referenced-token and jwt-status-list-format-and- processing. </ins> The "uri" attribute contained within a JWT using the "status" claim MUST be an HTTPS based URL that when resolved via an HTTPS GET