Re: [Acme] Responding to challenges - spec bug?

[Rob Stradling]

Thanks Daniel.

On 22/05/2019 16:58, Daniel McCarney wrote:
> Thanks Rob, I also agree this is a valid erratum finding with the spec.
> 
> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 7:34 AM Rob Stradling  > wrote:
> 
> On 20/05/2019 20:29, Jörn Heissler wrote:
>  > On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 15:56:21 +, Rob Stradling wrote:
>  >> How would folks feel about an erratum to change that sentence in
> section
>  >> 7.5.1 to the following:
>  >>     'The client indicates to the server that it is ready for the
> challenge
>  >>      validation by sending a POST request to the challenge URL
> (not the
>  >>      authorization URL), where the body of the POST request is a JWS
>  >>      object whose JSON payload is a response object (see Section
> 8).  For
>  >>      all challenge types defined in this document, the response
> object is
>  >>      the empty JSON object ({}).'
>  >> ?
>  >
>  > Hello,
>  >
>  > I agree with your finding and your suggested erratum.
> 
> Thanks Jörn.
> 
> I've filed an erratum for this:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5729

-- 
Rob Stradling
Senior Research & Development Scientist
Sectigo Limited

___
Acme mailing list
Acme@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme

Re: [Acme] Responding to challenges - spec bug?

[Daniel McCarney]

Thanks Rob, I also agree this is a valid erratum finding with the spec.

On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 7:34 AM Rob Stradling  wrote:

> On 20/05/2019 20:29, Jörn Heissler wrote:
> > On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 15:56:21 +, Rob Stradling wrote:
> >> How would folks feel about an erratum to change that sentence in section
> >> 7.5.1 to the following:
> >> 'The client indicates to the server that it is ready for the
> challenge
> >>  validation by sending a POST request to the challenge URL (not the
> >>  authorization URL), where the body of the POST request is a JWS
> >>  object whose JSON payload is a response object (see Section 8).
> For
> >>  all challenge types defined in this document, the response object
> is
> >>  the empty JSON object ({}).'
> >> ?
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I agree with your finding and your suggested erratum.
>
> Thanks Jörn.
>
> I've filed an erratum for this:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5729
>
> --
> Rob Stradling
> Senior Research & Development Scientist
> Sectigo Limited
>
> ___
> Acme mailing list
> Acme@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
>
___
Acme mailing list
Acme@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme

Re: [Acme] Responding to challenges - spec bug?

[Rob Stradling]

On 20/05/2019 20:29, Jörn Heissler wrote:
> On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 15:56:21 +, Rob Stradling wrote:
>> How would folks feel about an erratum to change that sentence in section
>> 7.5.1 to the following:
>> 'The client indicates to the server that it is ready for the challenge
>>  validation by sending a POST request to the challenge URL (not the
>>  authorization URL), where the body of the POST request is a JWS
>>  object whose JSON payload is a response object (see Section 8).  For
>>  all challenge types defined in this document, the response object is
>>  the empty JSON object ({}).'
>> ?
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I agree with your finding and your suggested erratum.

Thanks Jörn.

I've filed an erratum for this:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5729

-- 
Rob Stradling
Senior Research & Development Scientist
Sectigo Limited

___
Acme mailing list
Acme@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme

Re: [Acme] Responding to challenges - spec bug?

[Jörn Heissler]

On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 15:56:21 +, Rob Stradling wrote:
> How would folks feel about an erratum to change that sentence in section 
> 7.5.1 to the following:
>'The client indicates to the server that it is ready for the challenge
> validation by sending a POST request to the challenge URL (not the
> authorization URL), where the body of the POST request is a JWS
> object whose JSON payload is a response object (see Section 8).  For
> all challenge types defined in this document, the response object is
> the empty JSON object ({}).'
> ?

Hello,

I agree with your finding and your suggested erratum.

--
Jörn Heissler


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Acme mailing list
Acme@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme