Subject: [Acme] Questions about Account Objects in draft-ietf-acme-acme-10

From: "Zhang, Ning" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 19:53:43 +0000

I have a few questions related to Account Objects.

Section 7.1.2 indicates that the “orders” field is a required field.  However, the response example in Section 7.3 does not have the “orders” field. I am wondering if the “orders” field would be optional for “newAccount” response.

Additionally, Section 9.7.1 specifies an optional “externalAccountBinding” field. Should this field be included in Section 7.1.2?

Also, Section 9.7.1 specifies the “orders” field as an “array of string”. Should be just a “string” as specified in Section 7.1.2?

Thanks,
-Ning

---

From: Daniel McCarney <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 10:34:36 -0400

Hi Ning,

Thanks for the questions. I appreciate you bringing up these
inconsistencies.

Section 7.1.2 indicates that the “orders” field is a required field.
> However, the response example in Section 7.3 does not have the “orders”
> field. I am wondering if the “orders” field would be optional for
> “newAccount” response.

Section 7.3's example should have the "orders" field. Based on the wording
of the spec I don't believe its an optional field in the response.

Additionally, Section 9.7.1 specifies an optional “externalAccountBinding”
> field. Should this field be included in Section 7.1.2?

Section 7.1.2 is specifically talking about fields in created account
resources. "externalAccountBinding" is a field in a new account _request_
and I wouldn't expect it to be present in a returned account object from
the server.

That said, it looks like Section 7.3 doesn't mention the
"externalAccountBinding"  field when describing new account requests. That
should be fixed.

Also, Section 9.7.1 specifies the “orders” field as an “array of string”.
> Should be just a “string” as specified in Section 7.1.2?

Another good catch: Section 9.7.1 should describe the "orders" field as a
"string" to match 7.1.2. It only carries a URL in the current spec.
Previously it carried an array of order URIs but that was replaced.

I opened https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/415 to fix all of the
above.

Thanks again,

- Daniel / cpu

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Zhang, Ning <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> Section 7.1.2 indicates that the “orders” field is a required field.
> However, the response example in Section 7.3 does not have the “orders”
> field. I am wondering if the “orders” field would be optional for
> “newAccount” response.
>
> Additionally, Section 9.7.1 specifies an optional “externalAccountBinding”
> field. Should this field be included in Section 7.1.2?
>
> Also, Section 9.7.1 specifies the “orders” field as an “array of string”.
> Should be just a “string” as specified in Section 7.1.2?
>
> Thanks,
> -Ning
>
> _______________________________________________
> Acme mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
>
>

---

From: Daniel McCarney <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 11:06:58 -0400

https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/415 is merged now.

Thanks again,

- Daniel / cpu

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:34 AM, Daniel McCarney <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>> Additionally, Section 9.7.1 specifies an optional
>> “externalAccountBinding” field. Should this field be included in Section
>> 7.1.2?
>>