https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/415 is merged now.
Thanks again, - Daniel / cpu On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:34 AM, Daniel McCarney <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Ning, > > Thanks for the questions. I appreciate you bringing up these > inconsistencies. > > Section 7.1.2 indicates that the “orders” field is a required field. >> However, the response example in Section 7.3 does not have the “orders” >> field. I am wondering if the “orders” field would be optional for >> “newAccount” response. > > > Section 7.3's example should have the "orders" field. Based on the wording > of the spec I don't believe its an optional field in the response. > > Additionally, Section 9.7.1 specifies an optional “externalAccountBinding” >> field. Should this field be included in Section 7.1.2? > > > Section 7.1.2 is specifically talking about fields in created account > resources. "externalAccountBinding" is a field in a new account _request_ > and I wouldn't expect it to be present in a returned account object from > the server. > > That said, it looks like Section 7.3 doesn't mention the > "externalAccountBinding" field when describing new account requests. That > should be fixed. > > Also, Section 9.7.1 specifies the “orders” field as an “array of string”. >> Should be just a “string” as specified in Section 7.1.2? > > > Another good catch: Section 9.7.1 should describe the "orders" field as a > "string" to match 7.1.2. It only carries a URL in the current spec. > Previously it carried an array of order URIs but that was replaced. > > I opened https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/415 to fix all of the > above. > > Thanks again, > > - Daniel / cpu > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Zhang, Ning <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I have a few questions related to Account Objects. >> >> Section 7.1.2 indicates that the “orders” field is a required field. >> However, the response example in Section 7.3 does not have the “orders” >> field. I am wondering if the “orders” field would be optional for >> “newAccount” response. >> >> Additionally, Section 9.7.1 specifies an optional >> “externalAccountBinding” field. Should this field be included in Section >> 7.1.2? >> >> Also, Section 9.7.1 specifies the “orders” field as an “array of string”. >> Should be just a “string” as specified in Section 7.1.2? >> >> Thanks, >> -Ning >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Acme mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
