Yes please. This is something I noticed while doing a reading of this draft a while back.
Amir Omidi (he/them) On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 16:57 Rob Stradling <rob= [email protected]> wrote: > Given the recent interest in processing the backlog of RFC8555 errata > reports, could I please ask again for > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5732 to be reviewed, approved, and > marked as "Verified"? > > On 4th October 2019, Jacob wrote: > *"As an author, I think this erratum should be approved."* > (see > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/JjLqCSwehaT406A5FxVfTOWYqkw/) > ------------------------------ > *From:* erica <[email protected]> > *Sent:* 29 February 2020 00:44 > *To:* RFC Errata System <[email protected]> > *Cc:* [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; > [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] < > [email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] < > [email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] < > [email protected]>; Rob Stradling <[email protected]>; [email protected] < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [Acme] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8555 (5732) > > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not > click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know > the content is safe. > > Circling back on this -- I'd still like to see this get verified; are > there any additional evidence or actions on Certbot's part that could help > with that? > > On 2019-08-23 14:02, erica wrote: > > Hi, Erica from Certbot here. I'd love to see this get verified -- it seems > impossible to implement the "retrying challenges" section as the spec > currently stands. > > On 2019-05-23 02:46, RFC Errata System wrote: > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8555, > "Automatic Certificate Management Environment (ACME)". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5732 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Technical > Reported by: Rob Stradling <[email protected]> > > Section: 8 > > Original Text > ------------- > A challenge object with an error MUST have status > equal to "invalid". > > Corrected Text > -------------- > A challenge object with an error MUST have status > equal to "processing" or "invalid". > > Notes > ----- > Section 8.2 says that 'The server MUST add an entry to the "error" > field in the challenge after each failed validation query'. However, > if the challenge must then become "invalid", it is never possible to > retry any validation query (because "invalid" is a final state for a > challenge object). > This erratum is necessary to permit validation query retries to ever > happen. > > 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
