Re: [Acme] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8555 (5861)

Looks good to me.

Aaron

On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 3:39 AM Deb Cooley <debcooley1@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 <jsha@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
>