Looks good to me. Aaron
On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 3:39 AM Deb Cooley <debcool...@gmail.com> 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: > > ------------------------------------------ > > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
