Re: [Acme] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8555 (6103)

2024-01-04 Thread Jacob Hoffman-Andrews
Yeah, editorial seems right to me. ___ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme

Re: [Acme] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8555 (6103)

2024-01-04 Thread Aaron Gable
Agreed. Especially because the "newAuthz" resource is optional, this omission seems minor. I would accept as an editorial erratum. Aaron On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 4:03 AM Deb Cooley wrote: > This errata also had no responses. In this case, I'd suggest rejecting > it, or making it editorial. I do

Re: [Acme] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8555 (6103)

2024-01-03 Thread Deb Cooley
This errata also had no responses. In this case, I'd suggest rejecting it, or making it editorial. I don't think it affects how anyone would implement or interpret the RFC. But again, I'd like confirmation (or correction). Deb On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 9:19 AM RFC Errata System wrote: > The f

[Acme] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8555 (6103)

2020-04-14 Thread RFC Errata System
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8555, "Automatic Certificate Management Environment (ACME)". -- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6103 -- Type: Technical Report