This looked fine to me, so I just merged it. On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Daniel McCarney <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello again, > > I've taken a crack at clarifying what I found to be a confusing paragraph > from > Section 6.1 "Resources"[0]: > > > For the "new-X" resources above, the server MUST have exactly one > resource for > > each function. This resource may be addressed by multiple URIs, but all > must > > provide equivalent functionality. > > This was tough to parse and at first blush seems potentially contradictory. > It's not clear to me what this MUST is aiming to discourage, especially in > light > of an allowance of multiple URIs if functionality is equivalent. > > Similarly, while the text says "new-X" I believe the intentions of the > statements that follow would include some of the resources that have been > added > since, e.g. "key-change". > > I've proposed an update[1] in PR #179. If I've missed the mark in this > clarification perhaps someone who was involved with the spec at the time of > writing can help guide me to something both clearer & accurate to the > original > spirit. > > - Daniel/cpu > > [0] https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/blob/ > 3502ff0bfb6d434b4326e206ea7cae7b8434ac7d/draft-ietf-acme-acme.md#resources > [1] https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/179/files > > > _______________________________________________ > Acme mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme > >
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
