Okay, I added the reference (though I also cut the reference to REST in that MUST sentence, as it really doesn't do any work there). Uploading this version, let me know if you need something more here.
Jon Peterson Neustar (a TransUnion company) On 10/24/22, 7:19 AM, "Roman Danyliw" <[email protected]> wrote: 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
