On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 1:48 AM, Logan Widick <[email protected]> wrote:
> From the text, if the field isn't present, should the server act like it > was set to false > Correct. > > If this new field is false, and an account exists, then what happens to > the pre-existing account, its orders, its certificates and its > authorizations? > Same as before -- you get a 200 with the existing account. --Richard > > Sincerely, > > Logan Widick > > On Apr 17, 2017 17:45, "Richard Barnes" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> In reviewing a PR today noting that a client can find the account URI for >> a key pair using a new-account request with an empty payload [1], Jacob and >> I thought it might be a little more robust to use an explicit signal. I've >> posted a PR that adds a "recovery" field to indicate to the server that it >> should not create an account if one does not exist already. Which is a >> little ironic in a request to an endpoint designed to create an account, >> but saves us creating a whole new endpoint. >> >> https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/296 >> >> Please let me know if you have any comments on the approach here. >> >> Thanks, >> --Richard >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Acme mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme >> >>
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
