I missed a couple spots of oldKey with the earlier PR. Followup PR: https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/199.
On 09/21/2016 03:21 PM, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews wrote: > Thanks! Any other comments? I'd like to merge this and get to implementing. > > On 09/20/2016 12:38 PM, Daniel McCarney wrote: >> The simplified verification reads much clearer to me and I think better >> matches the intention of the rollover operation, and which key is >> performing the authorization. +1 >> >> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/189 >> <https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/189> >> >> Signing with the current account key allows servers to use the same >> message >> transport authentication that they use for other requests, >> simplifying the >> verification. >> >> Also fix two spots where we still described newKey/oldKey as >> thumbprints. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> > _______________________________________________ > Acme mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme > _______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
