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 for an identifier where the authorization object already exists, whether created by CA provisioning on the ACME server or by the ACME server handling a previous newAuthz request from a client, the server returns a 200 (OK) response with the existing authorization URL in the Location header field and the existing JSON authorization object in the body. ---------------------------------------------- Errata new: Section 7.4.1 It should say: 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 existing JSON authorization object in the body. ---------------------------------- Is this correct? Or does it need to be tweaked? Deb On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 1:29 PM Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <j...@eff.org> wrote: > > 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 > existing JSON authorization object in the body.” > > This sounds good to me. Thanks for the update. >
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
