On 09/08/2016 10:17 AM, Richard Barnes wrote: > This sounds fine to me too, though I have some quibbles with the PRs. > > - We should get rid of "processing" globally (#186 leaves it for > authorizations) > - It seems duplicative to have "deactivated", "revoked", and "invalid". > Maybe we can keep "invalid" as "this failed without ever being valid", > but let's decide on one for "this was valid, and is no longer". Between > "deactivated" and "revoked", I slightly prefer "revoked", but then it > seems like we should change the wording of the sections about > deactivation to talk about revocation instead. Not something I want to > waste a lot of bikeshed paint on, though.
The reason for having 'deactivated' and 'revoked' was to differentiate accounts disabled by a user voluntarily and accounts disabled administratively for terms violations etc. > > Roland, if you could update the PRs, sounds like we could go ahead and > merge. > > > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 12:48 AM, Ron <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 02:18:43PM -0400, Daniel McCarney wrote: > > +1. > > > > Removing 'processing' and 'unknown' makes sense to me. I think the > > remaining statuses are comprehensive enough. > > I agree with this. It was one of the original review nits I posted > to this list many months back. > > 'unknown' was basically an internal state of Boulder that had no real > reason to ever be leaked out into a protocol message, and the > distinction between 'pending' and 'processing' was never defined in > the spec, only as an implementation detail of Boulder (though it did > make some sense how Boulder was using it). > > I still think it would also be useful for the spec to give some > definition for what each of the remaining statuses are supposed to > mean and when a server should send them, and some guidance for what > a client should do if it receives them - even though that should be > a bit more obvious now if we prune away the more ambiguous ones. > > > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 6:12 PM, Roland Bracewell Shoemaker < > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > > Currently the specification defines the statuses 'unknown' and > > > 'processing' as valid for both applications and authorizations. > Given > > > that both also have 'valid', 'pending', and 'invalid' I can't > really see > > > a reason to keep 'unknown' and for applications in particular the > > > meaning of 'processing' seems quite similar to 'pending' > (whereas with > > > an authorization I think it makes sense when a validation is > actively > > > being done by the server). > > > > > > Any objections to removing these statuses? > > _______________________________________________ > Acme mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme> > > _______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
