Thank you for the detailed feedback!
As announced at the meeting on Thursday, the editor’s plan is to address the
major technical issue and start looking at your review. We’ll put out another
draft, and perhaps do a limited WGLC that focuses on just the
not-purely-editorial changes.
Hey all,
First off I'd like to apologize for requesting an agenda item then not
making it to the meeting to discuss it. It seems that while I had the
right time in my calendar I managed to get the wrong day.
The point of the draft is to provide a method for validating the control
of IP addresses
I think this is a solid proposal addressing a real need. I'm +1 for
supporting it both in spec and in Boulder/Pebble.
Thanks Jacob,
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 8:23 PM, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews wrote:
> In previous versions of ACME, there was sometimes a need to return
> multiple
Oh, my bad, my eyes turn out to be a terrible JSON parser.
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 4:49 PM, Matthew A. Miller
wrote:
> On 17/11/16 16:47, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews wrote:
>> On 11/16/2017 12:45 AM, Martin Thomson wrote:
>>> I don't know what a random JSON parser
On 17/11/16 16:47, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews wrote:
> On 11/16/2017 12:45 AM, Martin Thomson wrote:
>> I don't know what a random JSON parser would do with your stacked error
>> codes.
> I don't understand. What I'm proposing is an array of JSON objects under
> the sub-problems field, which should be
On 11/16/2017 12:45 AM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> I don't know what a random JSON parser would do with your stacked error codes.
I don't understand. What I'm proposing is an array of JSON objects under
the sub-problems field, which should be supported by any JSON parser.
Have you considered json text sequences: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7464 ?
I don't know what a random JSON parser would do with your stacked error codes.
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews wrote:
> On 11/15/2017 07:07 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
>> Following