Hi Ning, It seems that the second statement makes more sense, by changing the > “pending” into “ready” in the first statement.
Agreed, this was an oversight in https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/commit/5da11f713e808bd5c8a707dc67754f5ca37b120e .. I opened a pull request to implement this fix https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/417 Additionally, should the “finalize” URL be made optional in Section 7.1.3, > and returned only if the order status is transitioned to “ready”? My preference here is no. This would introduce two ways to check for the same thing: whether an order is ready. One by checking the status == "ready" and one by checking if there is a finalizationURL. I think this will complicate things without any strong benefits. Thanks for catching another spec error! :-) - Daniel / cpu On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 4:10 PM, Zhang, Ning <[email protected]> wrote: > In Section 7.4, the following two statements seem to in conflict with each > other: > > > > A request to finalize an order will result in error if the order indicated > does not have status “pending”, if the CSR and order identifiers differ, or > if the account is not authorized for the identifiers indicated in the CSR.. > > … > > "ready": The server agrees that the requirements have been fulfilled, and > is awaiting finalization. Submit a finalization request. > > > > It seems that the second statement makes more sense, by changing the > “pending” into “ready” in the first statement. > > > > Additionally, should the “finalize” URL be made optional in Section 7.1.3, > and returned only if the order status is transitioned to “ready”? > > > > 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
