> 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>
> 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?
> > 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?
> > Thanks!
> > On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 8:50 AM, Felipe Gasper <fel...@felipegasper.com>
> > 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