Hi Niklas, I've submitted a PR to fix the inconsistencies you found: https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/282
> 2) There's "new-account", but the account resource is called "acct", I think it should be "account" everywhere. We don't gain anything by saving a few keystrokes / bytes there. The only place I could find the usage of "acct" that wasn't in a URL in example JSON was the Section 7.1 diagram. I think having "acct" in URL returned by the ACME server in examples is fine - the spec calls these resources "accounts" but the server is free to use whatever it chooses for the URL and clients shouldn't make assumptions about the content. On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Niklas Keller <m...@kelunik.com> wrote: > I'm resending this message as there were no responses and nothing changed. > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > Morning, > > the current draft contains a few inconsistencies in the resource naming. > > 1) https://ietf-wg-acme.github.io/acme/#rfc.section.6.1 mentions > "revoke-certificate", while it's called "revoke-cert" in the rest of the > document. > > 2) There's "new-account", but the account resource is called "acct", I > think it should be "account" everywhere. We don't gain anything by saving a > few keystrokes / bytes there. > > Maybe we should then also rename "authz" to "authorization" and "cert" to > "certificate" everywhere. > > Regards, Niklas > > > _______________________________________________ > Acme mailing list > Acme@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme > >
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
