Yeah, editorial seems right to me.
___
Acme mailing list
Acme@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
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
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
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