@misc{rfc6749,
series = {Request for Comments},
number = 6749,
howpublished = {RFC 6749},
publisher = {RFC Editor},
doi = {10.17487/RFC6749},
url = {https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6749},
author = {Dick Hardt},
title = {{The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework}},
pagetotal = 76,
year = 2012,
month = oct,
abstract = {The OAuth 2.0 authorization framework enables a third-party application to obtain limited access to an HTTP service, either on behalf of a resource owner by orchestrating an approval interaction between the resource owner and the HTTP service, or by allowing the third-party application to obtain access on its own behalf. This specification replaces and obsoletes the OAuth 1.0 protocol described in RFC 5849. {[}STANDARDS-TRACK{]}},
}
Workaround
My current workaround is to either manually change the month to its numerical representation (i.e. month = 10 instead of month = oct), or to add the following lines at the top of my bibtex file:
Issue
When loading a BibTeX file that has a non-numeric
month
field, the parsing fails. Using a three letter abbreviation for the month seems to be at least somewhat common practice.Here is a BibTeX as provided by the IETF for an RFC (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6749/bibtex/)
Workaround
My current workaround is to either manually change the month to its numerical representation (i.e.
month = 10
instead ofmonth = oct
), or to add the following lines at the top of my bibtex file: