On 09/20/2016 01:44 PM, Daniel McCarney wrote: > Based on the discussion on this thread it seems there is more support > for the proactive approach. Speaking on behalf of Let's Encrypt and the > Boulder developers we're willing to compromise and support proactive > issuance as the sole issuance method in order to simplify the protocol & > implementations. > > I opened a PR [0] that changes the language around certificate issuance > to reflect that the server MUST issue the certificate proactively once > all the required challenges for an application have been fulfilled. > > I think this should wrap up the discussion in a way that is satisfying > for everyone that has voiced an opinion so far. Thanks! > > [0]: https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/191
This looks good to me. _______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
