This errata also had no responses. In this case, I'd suggest rejecting it, or making it editorial. I don't think it affects how anyone would implement or interpret the RFC. But again, I'd like confirmation (or correction).
Deb On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 9:19 AM RFC Errata System <[email protected]> wrote: > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8555, > "Automatic Certificate Management Environment (ACME)". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6103 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Technical > Reported by: Theodor Nolte <[email protected]> > > Section: 7.1. > > Original Text > ------------- > o A "newAccount" resource (Section 7.3) > > o A "newOrder" resource (Section 7.4) > > Corrected Text > -------------- > o A "newAccount" resource (Section 7.3) > > o A "newAuthz" resource (Section 7.4) > > o A "newOrder" resource (Section 7.4) > > Notes > ----- > The item for the "newAuthz" resource is missing in the list of resources. > > Instructions: > ------------- > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC8555 (draft-ietf-acme-acme-18) > -------------------------------------- > Title : Automatic Certificate Management Environment (ACME) > Publication Date : March 2019 > Author(s) : R. Barnes, J. Hoffman-Andrews, D. McCarney, J. Kasten > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : Automated Certificate Management Environment > Area : Security > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG > > _______________________________________________ > Acme mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme >
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
