Adding "or false" to the existing sentence seems correct to me, as a technical erratum.
Adding the sentence regarding pre-authorizations is purely editorial; there is already text elsewhere in the document which makes that clear. Aaron On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 3:32 AM Deb Cooley <[email protected]> wrote: > Today's Errata.... This looks editorial to me. Opinions? > > Deb > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 11:22 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/eid6364 >> >> -------------------------------------- >> Type: Technical >> Reported by: Evangelos Karatsiolis <[email protected]> >> >> Section: 7.1.4 >> >> Original Text >> ------------- >> wildcard (optional, boolean): This field MUST be present and true >> for authorizations created as a result of a newOrder request >> containing a DNS identifier with a value that was a wildcard >> domain name. For other authorizations, it MUST be absent. >> Wildcard domain names are described in Section 7.1.3. >> >> Corrected Text >> -------------- >> wildcard (optional, boolean): This field MUST be present and true >> for authorizations created as a result of a newOrder request >> containing a DNS identifier with a value that was a wildcard >> domain name. For other authorizations, it MUST be absent or >> false. For pre-authorizations, it MUST be absent or false. >> Wildcard domain names are described in Section 7.1.3. >> >> Notes >> ----- >> This section states that the wildcard field must be absent for other >> authorizations, but the example in this section has an explicitly set >> wildcard field with value false. The proposed change allows both options, >> either omitting it or explicitly setting it to false. Also a sentence has >> been added to explicitly describe the behavior for pre-authorizations. >> >> 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 >
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
