On 09/10/2016 04:13 PM, Richard Barnes wrote: > OK, let me clarify my invariants here: I think we can't get away with > not supporting the case where the CA updates the terms and needs > clients to re-agree. I would argue that we don't need to support it explicitly, because returning an error with a link to an out-of-band URL for re-agreeing is sufficient, and matches the most likely flow.
> I also feel like the current proposal in #167 is semantically > incomplete, like just saying "I agree" ... to what? > > I think both of these issues can be addressed with a few tweaks to > this Jacob's proposal: > > - Clarify that having the agreement flag set means that the client has > agreed to whatever is in directory["terms-of-service"] > - Note that that implies that if the CA changes the terms in a > breaking way, then it needs to clear the flag in the registrations > - Add an error code "agreementRequired" (as in #182) so that the CA > can tell the client when this has happened This works for me, thanks! _______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
