Re: [Acme] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8555 (5732)

Given the recent interest in processing the backlog of RFC8555 errata reports, could I please ask again for https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5732 to be reviewed, approved, and marked as "Verified"?

On 4th October 2019, Jacob wrote:
"As an author, I think this erratum should be approved."
(see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/JjLqCSwehaT406A5FxVfTOWYqkw/)
________________________________
From: erica <erica@eff.org>
Sent: 29 February 2020 00:44
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: rlb@ipv.sx <rlb@ipv.sx>; jsha@eff.org <jsha@eff.org>; cpu@letsencrypt.org <cpu@letsencrypt.org>; jdkasten@umich.edu <jdkasten@umich.edu>; rdd@cert.org <rdd@cert.org>; kaduk@mit.edu <kaduk@mit.edu>; rsalz@akamai.com <rsalz@akamai.com>; ynir.ietf@gmail.com <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>; Rob Stradling <rob@sectigo.com>; acme@ietf.org <acme@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Acme] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8555 (5732)

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Circling back on this -- I'd still like to see this get verified; are there any additional evidence or actions on Certbot's part that could help with that?

On 2019-08-23 14:02, erica wrote:

Hi, Erica from Certbot here. I'd love to see this get verified -- it seems impossible to implement the "retrying challenges" section as the spec currently stands.

On 2019-05-23 02:46, RFC Errata System wrote:
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8555,
"Automatic Certificate Management Environment (ACME)".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5732

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Rob Stradling <rob@sectigo.com<mailto:rob@sectigo.com>>

Section: 8

Original Text
-------------
A challenge object with an error MUST have status
equal to "invalid".

Corrected Text
--------------
A challenge object with an error MUST have status
equal to "processing" or "invalid".

Notes
-----
Section 8.2 says that 'The server MUST add an entry to the "error"
field in the challenge after each failed validation query'.  However,
if the challenge must then become "invalid", it is never possible to
retry any validation query (because "invalid" is a final state for a
challenge object).
This erratum is necessary to permit validation query retries to ever happen.

Instructions:
-------------
This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.

--------------------------------------
RFC8555 (draft-ietf-acme-acme-18)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Automatic Certificate Management Environment (ACME)
Publication Date    : March 2019
Author(s)           : R. Barnes, J. Hoffman-Andrews, D. McCarney, J. Kasten
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Automated Certificate Management Environment
Area                : Security
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG

_______________________________________________
Acme mailing list
Acme@ietf.org<mailto:Acme@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme