On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 03:08:59PM +0200, Fabio Scotoni wrote:
> This diff updates the acme-client(1) STANDARDS section.
> Currently, it lists an RFC draft for the ACME protocol.
> Since March of this year, there is a proposed standard with an actual
> RFC number.
> While at it, make the format match ssh(1) STANDARDS by providing .%A and
> .%D entries.
> Index: usr.sbin/acme-client/acme-client.1
> RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.sbin/acme-client/acme-client.1,v
> retrieving revision 1.29
> diff -u -p -u -p -r1.29 acme-client.1
> --- usr.sbin/acme-client/acme-client.1 3 Feb 2019 20:39:35 -0000 1.29
> +++ usr.sbin/acme-client/acme-client.1 24 Apr 2019 13:05:10 -0000
> @@ -145,7 +145,12 @@ is reloaded:
> .Xr httpd.conf 5
> .Sh STANDARDS
> -.%U https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-acme-acme-03 > +.%A R. Barnes
> +.%A J. Hoffman-Andrews
> +.%A D. McCarney
> +.%A J. Kasten
> +.%D March 2019
> +.%R RFC 8555
> .%T Automatic Certificate Management Environment (ACME)
> .Sh HISTORY
Isn't RF C8555 ACMEv2? acme-client(1) only supports ACMEv1, so I don't
think this is correct.
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 09:34:57AM -0400, Bryan Steele wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 03:08:59PM +0200, Fabio Scotoni wrote:
>> Isn't RF C8555 ACMEv2? acme-client(1) only supports ACMEv1, so I don't
>> think this is correct.
> Indeed, this is not correct.
Oops, my bad.
It seemed more straightforward than it was.
I apologize for the noise caused by my bogus diff;
please disregard it.