On 08/19/2016 05:32 PM, Ron wrote: > If the only possible use for it is to include exactly that string, > then it's just useless verbiage, not an interface. > > We might as well just say that sending a request which would fail if > you didn't include that string indicates acceptance - because doing > anything else just wouldn't work anyway if acceptance isn't optional. > > That's the logical conclusion if pruning dead-wood is the goal here.
I.e. say "If the directory request includes a terms-of-service, posting to new-registration indicates acceptance of the terms-of-service?" I would be fine with that, but would need to check with the Let's Encrypt lawyer and possibly auditors to ensure that would meet the requirements of the BRs. Would that be acceptable to you? If so I can begin that work. > Sure, but I'm saying that as a user I _do_ want to declare explicitly > what I am agreeing to. And if we're talking about WGLC in November, > that doesn't leave a lot of time for most of the extant CAs to tell > us what they do or don't need wrt to this. As I've said previously, I don't think we're close to being ready for WGLC in November. > We might not be able to "solve" it. All I'm asking for is that we don't > _introduce_ it with a bad protocol design, that implies legally binding > acceptance, to uncertain terms, with an ambiguously general nod and wink. Can you give an example of a successful protocol that explicitly negotiates a versioned terms-of-service? _______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
