I think this is "hold for update." It would specify a change to how servers
operate in practice today.
___
Acme mailing list
Acme@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
I believe this erratum should be rejected, for a few reasons:
1) It is not a clarification or fixing an obvious mistake, it is a change
to the protocol. Today, many ACME servers (Let's Encrypt included)
immediately move an Authorization to the "invalid" state as soon as any
Challenge for that
On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 11:13:01PM +0900, Seo Suchan wrote:
> While looks sensible I wonder if how many clients pulling on auth
> instead of challanges: Those client will pull without limit if this
> behavior applied to CA
>
> For example this client do watch auths status instead of challenge
>
While looks sensible I wonder if how many clients pulling on auth instead of
challanges:
Those client will pull without limit if this behavior applied to CA
For example this client do watch auths status instead of challenge itself.
This is the last errata I'll pester you with today. This one seems
sensible. Please confirm or enlighten me.
Deb
On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 7:07 PM RFC Errata System
wrote:
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8555,
> "Automatic Certificate Management Environment (ACME)".
>
>
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/eid6317
--
Type: Technical
