Hi Since you’re merging stuff, then please submit a new version of the draft ASAP. We *are* in IETF LC, and we wouldn’t want everyone to read an “old” version of the draft.
Thanks Yoav > On 26 Mar 2018, at 17:52, Daniel McCarney <c...@letsencrypt.org> wrote: > > PR #417 was merged. This should be resolved now. > > Thanks again! > > - Daniel / cpu > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Daniel McCarney <c...@letsencrypt.org > <mailto:c...@letsencrypt.org>> wrote: > Hi Ning, > > It seems that the second statement makes more sense, by changing the > “pending” into “ready” in the first statement. > > Agreed, this was an oversight in > https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/commit/5da11f713e808bd5c8a707dc67754f5ca37b120e > > <https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/commit/5da11f713e808bd5c8a707dc67754f5ca37b120e>. > > I opened a pull request to implement this fix > https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/417 > <https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/417> > > Additionally, should the “finalize” URL be made optional in Section 7.1.3, > and returned only if the order status is transitioned to “ready”? > > My preference here is no. This would introduce two ways to check for the same > thing: whether an order is ready. One by checking the status == "ready" and > one by checking if there is a finalizationURL. I think this will complicate > things without any strong benefits. > > Thanks for catching another spec error! :-) > > - Daniel / cpu > > > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 4:10 PM, Zhang, Ning <Ning.Zhang@team.neustar > <mailto:Ning.Zhang@team.neustar>> wrote: > In Section 7.4, the following two statements seem to in conflict with each > other: > > > > A request to finalize an order will result in error if the order indicated > does not have status “pending”, if the CSR and order identifiers differ, or > if the account is not authorized for the identifiers indicated in the CSR. > > … > > "ready": The server agrees that the requirements have been fulfilled, and is > awaiting finalization. Submit a finalization request. > > > > It seems that the second statement makes more sense, by changing the > “pending” into “ready” in the first statement. > > > > Additionally, should the “finalize” URL be made optional in Section 7.1.3, > and returned only if the order status is transitioned to “ready”? > > > > Thanks, > > -Ning > > > _______________________________________________ > Acme mailing list > Acme@ietf.org <mailto:Acme@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Acme mailing list > Acme@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
