Looks good to me.
Aaron
On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 3:39 AM Deb Cooley wrote:
> The ADs can edit the language of an errata. If we can agree on the
> language, they can modify the errata and then mark it as Verified. Below
> is what I have for this:
>
> --
>
The ADs can edit the language of an errata. If we can agree on the
language, they can modify the errata and then mark it as Verified. Below
is what I have for this:
--
Errata old:
Section 7.4.1, It should say:
If a server receives a newAuthz request
> That’s fair. The text should probably state something along the lines of
>
> “If the server has an existing authorization for the identifier, depending on
> server policy, the server may return a 200 (OK) response with the existing
> authorization URL in the Location header field and the
ch.edu;
c...@letsencrypt.org; Owen Friel (ofriel)
Cc: r...@cert.org; ynir.i...@gmail.com; acme@ietf.org; rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org
Subject: Re: [Acme] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8555 (5861)
This overspecifies things. When someone requests to create a new authorization
object (or requests
Thanks. I'll mark this as 'Rejected'. If Owen wants to resubmit it taking
this into account, he can.
Deb
On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 3:28 PM Jacob Hoffman-Andrews wrote:
> This overspecifies things. When someone requests to create a new
> authorization object (or requests to create a new order
This overspecifies things. When someone requests to create a new authorization
object (or requests to create a new order object that would necessitate
creation of new authorization objects), it is up to server policy whether to
reuse an existing authorization or not. For instance a server might
Agreed on all counts. It is a sensible addition, and is likely the approach
that would be taken by ACME servers that implement pre-authorization. To
address Seo's good point, I would suggest inserting the text *just before*
the last paragraph of Section 7.4.1, and phrasing it as:
"If the
Think it should limit to authz with valid or pending state, and for same
account. Finalized auths are still exsit on server; and other accounts may have
auth for it
On 2024년 1월 3일 오후 8시 36분 37초 GMT+09:00, Deb Cooley 작성함:
>Happy New Year!
>
>I'm going through acme's errata. This one was
Happy New Year!
I'm going through acme's errata. This one was reported, but crickets on
any responses from the authors (or others). It looks like a sensible
addition to me, but I'd like confirmation.
Thanks
Deb
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 8:50 AM RFC Errata System
wrote:
> The following errata
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/eid5861
--
Type: Technical
10 matches
Mail list logo
