> > Would it be sensible to move the common list of parameters there as well, > for parity with how the other object types are described?
I think the forward pointer is probably sufficient. Richard: What do you think? On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Felipe Gasper <fel...@felipegasper.com> wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > It definitely helps, yes. Would it be sensible to move the common > list of parameters there as well, for parity with how the other object > types are described? > > -Felipe > > > On Mar 2, 2018, at 9:34 AM, Daniel McCarney <c...@letsencrypt.org> wrote: > > > > Hi Felipe, > > > > Does this PR from Richard Barnes address your feedback? > https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/399 > > > > Thanks! > > > > On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 8:50 AM, Felipe Gasper <fel...@felipegasper.com> > wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I’ve been looking over the -09 draft and have created a Perl > client module against Pebble as well as LE’s new testing endpoint. > > > > I’m curious about whether the specification intends to define > Challenge objects. They appear to exist, of course, but they’re not defined > as objects per se in section 7.1 of the draft. > > > > Thank you! > > > > -Felipe Gasper > > Mississauga, ON > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
