[Acme] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8555 (5729)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Wed, 22 May 2019 10:23 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: acme@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: acme@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC4391200C4 for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 May 2019 03:23:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xfnNm2THrh4G for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 May 2019 03:23:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43425120077 for <acme@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 May 2019 03:23:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 605D7B82A03; Wed, 22 May 2019 03:23:12 -0700 (PDT)
To: rlb@ipv.sx, jsha@eff.org, cpu@letsencrypt.org, jdkasten@umich.edu, rdd@cert.org, kaduk@mit.edu, rsalz@akamai.com, ynir.ietf@gmail.com
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: rob@sectigo.com, acme@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20190522102312.605D7B82A03@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 03:23:12 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/LjfkjrHX6CzWcjKm-EvD3TzzqMU>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 22 May 2019 07:47:22 -0700
Subject: [Acme] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8555 (5729)
X-BeenThere: acme@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Automated Certificate Management Environment <acme.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/acme>, <mailto:acme-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/acme/>
List-Post: <mailto:acme@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:acme-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme>, <mailto:acme-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 10:23:36 -0000
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/eid5729 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Rob Stradling <rob@sectigo.com> Section: 7.5.1 Original Text ------------- The client indicates to the server that it is ready for the challenge validation by sending an empty JSON body ("{}") carried in a POST request to the challenge URL (not the authorization URL). Corrected Text -------------- The client indicates to the server that it is ready for the challenge validation by sending a POST request to the challenge URL (not the authorization URL), where the body of the POST request is a JWS object whose JSON payload is a response object (see Section 8). For all challenge types defined in this document, the response object is the empty JSON object ("{}"). Notes ----- It's clear from other text in section 7.5.1 that the "empty JSON body" is interpreted by the ACME server as a "response object". (The first function of this erratum is to clarify this point). Section 8 says that "The definition of a challenge type includes...Contents of response objects", and section 7.5.1 notes that "the challenges in this document do not define any response fields, but future specifications might define them". (The second function of this erratum is to permit clients to send response objects that contain response fields). 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] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8555 (5729) RFC Errata System
- Re: [Acme] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8555 (5… Jacob Hoffman-Andrews
- Re: [Acme] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8555 (5… Richard Barnes