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

[Deb Cooley <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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.
>