Richard: Will you take care of whatever this involves?
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 12:05 PM, Yoav Nir <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi > > Since you’re merging stuff, then please submit a new version of the draft > ASAP. We *are* in IETF LC, and we wouldn’t want everyone to read an “old” > version of the draft. > > Thanks > > Yoav > > > On 26 Mar 2018, at 17:52, Daniel McCarney <[email protected]> wrote: > > PR #417 was merged. This should be resolved now. > > Thanks again! > > - Daniel / cpu > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Daniel McCarney <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 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 > > >
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
