Haven't heard any opposition on this, so we're merging, with some minor copy-edits.
On 09/23/2016 03:37 PM, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
