Thanks Daniel. On 22/05/2019 16:58, Daniel McCarney wrote: > 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 > <mailto: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
