Hi Jon! Inline ...
> -----Original Message----- > From: Roman Danyliw > Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2022 3:57 PM > To: Peterson, Jon <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: RE: [Acme] Next steps on draft-ietf-acme-authority-token > > Hi Jon! > > Thanks for working on the revised draft. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Peterson, Jon <[email protected]> > > Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2022 3:45 PM > > To: Roman Danyliw <[email protected]>; [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [Acme] Next steps on draft-ietf-acme-authority-token [snip] > > (5) Rob's ballot > > > > ==[ snip ]== > > MUST support an HTTPS REST interface > > > > Is REST well defined enough to be an RFC 2119 MUST? Does this > > need a reference to what constitutes a REST interface that would be > > compliant with this specification? > > ==[ snip ]== > > > > I'm checking in with the ART ADs for a recommended reference. I spoke with the ART AD (Murray). He recommends using RFC7231 as the citation for REST. There is no RFC that defines REST, but this RFC provides a reference for REST. Roman _______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
