Oops! RFC editing is not thread safe and Jacob and I have encountered a data race.
One of our PRs can be closed. I'm not particular about which :-) On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <j...@eff.org> wrote: > Hi Niklas, > > Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. > > On 03/13/2017 01:28 PM, Niklas Keller wrote: > > 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. > > I created a PR to change this to match the rest of the document: > https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/283. > > 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 thing the protocol specifies is the "new-account" name. In the > examples, we show the created resource as /acme/acct/1, but it's up to the > ACME server what path to use for those. I don't think it's necessary for > this name to match. > > Maybe we should then also rename "authz" to "authorization" and "cert" to > "certificate" everywhere. > > I'm not sure the value here is worth the extra changes to clients (though > I could be convinced otherwise). > > _______________________________________________ > 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
