I stripped most of your message out, trying to leave only the questions that I think still need replies. But please feel free to continue this conversation.
> Regarding the on-going development of the spec: I was thinking more about the > individual commits on github and less about the IETF process. I presume that > most commits will not get much scrutiny but a periodic (holistic?) review of > the doc is expected to find and resolve conflicts, etc. Is that a fair > statement? Not necessarily. Especially this late in the game, I think many -- probably most, in fact -- readers look at individual PR's, as they are already familiar with the overall document. > In the -03 version of the draft, section 6.1 is where I felt the spec was > getting too much into server implementation details. I think there were some > other spots where "server must" statements felt a little over-specified. It would be good (from the WG viewpoint) to list specifics. > The versioning strategy of having CA's provide different URL's for different > versions of different clients might not scale well. On the other hand, it might. Versioning protocols is always hard. We'll have to see what needs to be done if we revise the protocol. We did just decide to add version information into the protocol (https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/issues/128). /r$, co-chair _______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
