Re: [Acme] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8555 (6364)

Adding "or false" to the existing sentence seems correct to me, as a
technical erratum.

Adding the sentence regarding pre-authorizations is purely editorial; there
is already text elsewhere in the document which makes that clear.

Aaron

On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 3:32 AM Deb Cooley <debcooley1@gmail.com> wrote:

> Today's Errata....  This looks editorial to me.  Opinions?
>
> Deb
>
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 11:22 AM RFC Errata System <
> rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
>
>> 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/eid6364
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> Type: Technical
>> Reported by: Evangelos Karatsiolis <ekaratsiolis@mtg.de>
>>
>> Section: 7.1.4
>>
>> Original Text
>> -------------
>>    wildcard (optional, boolean):  This field MUST be present and true
>>       for authorizations created as a result of a newOrder request
>>       containing a DNS identifier with a value that was a wildcard
>>       domain name.  For other authorizations, it MUST be absent.
>>       Wildcard domain names are described in Section 7.1.3.
>>
>> Corrected Text
>> --------------
>>    wildcard (optional, boolean):  This field MUST be present and true
>>       for authorizations created as a result of a newOrder request
>>       containing a DNS identifier with a value that was a wildcard
>>       domain name.  For other authorizations, it MUST be absent or
>>       false.  For pre-authorizations, it MUST be absent or false.
>>       Wildcard domain names are described in Section 7.1.3.
>>
>> Notes
>> -----
>> This section states that the wildcard field must be absent for other
>> authorizations, but the example in this section has an explicitly set
>> wildcard field with value false. The proposed change allows both options,
>> either omitting it or explicitly setting it to false. Also a sentence has
>> been added to explicitly describe the behavior for pre-authorizations.
>>
>> 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
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Acme mailing list
> Acme@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
>