> If the RFC does not strictly require an empty payload, that solves half of my
> problem. It might be worth considering updating the language used in the RFC
> to something like -
> "The client indicates to the server that it is ready for the challenge
> validation by sending a JSON POST reques
Hi everyone,
Based on the feedback received, we've published a new version of the
DNS-ACCOUNT-01 draft (
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-acme-dns-account-label/). This
version has been simplified by removing DNS-02 and the scoping mechanism,
focusing purely on enabling multiple concurr
The text of the RFC itself is not updated; you can consider verified
erratum to be authoritative. Verified erratum will be incorporated into
ACME-bis (a.k.a. ACME v2) if such a document is deemed necessary in the
future.
Aaron
On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 8:03 AM Jeremy Hahn wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Apol
Hello,
Apologies for neglecting your inquiry. Yes, this seems to address the
issue. Thank you very much.
What is the process and expected timeline to get it published to the RFC?
On Mon, Nov 18, 2024, 10:57 AM Rob Stradling wrote:
> > If the RFC does not strictly require an empty payload, that
