Thanks Rob, I also agree this is a valid erratum finding with the spec.
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 7:34 AM Rob Stradling <r...@sectigo.com> wrote:
> On 20/05/2019 20:29, Jörn Heissler wrote:
> > On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 15:56:21 +0000, Rob Stradling wrote:
> >> How would folks feel about an erratum to change that sentence in section
> >> 7.5.1 to the following:
> >> 'The client indicates to the server that it is ready for the
> challenge
> >> validation by sending a POST request to the challenge URL (not the
> >> authorization URL), where the body of the POST request is a JWS
> >> object whose JSON payload is a response object (see Section 8).
> For
> >> all challenge types defined in this document, the response object
> is
> >> the empty JSON object ({}).'
> >> ?
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I agree with your finding and your suggested erratum.
>
> Thanks Jörn.
>
> I've filed an erratum for this:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5729
>
> --
> Rob Stradling
> Senior Research & Development Scientist
> Sectigo Limited
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
