I really don't care. If people like "order", we can do a global search and replace, and hope the RFC Editor will catch the ones we miss.
While we're at it, the bikeshed I've been caching is "registration" -> "account". Seems like normal people think of "registration" as something you do once, and an "account" as the thing it creates. That's why we refer to an "account key", for example. On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Ted Hardie <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I've been putting off this conversation because it is doomed to become a >> bikeshed, but I am proposing to rename Applications to Orders. >> >> > So, I have to thoroughly agree that this is a bikeshed. > > >> The reason: ACME is intended, among other things, to simplify the >> certificate issuance and deployment process. That includes being >> accessible to people who don't have a lot of time to learn about the >> internals of ACME. > > > Are you thinking of implementers or folks using ACME to get a certificate? > > The term "application" is heavily overloaded, and >> users might mistake it for the software used to access ACME. So saying >> "what is the URL for your application," for instance, could mean >> https://certbot.eff.org/ OR >> https://acme-v01.api.letsencrypt.org/application/123. >> >> > It is overloaded, but the document is pretty good about saying > "application for a certificate" or "application for issuance". But those > phrases are really intended to be consumed by implementers. I don't think > you have to reuse that term in your user-facing documentation, and > localization will require taking up that problem in any case. > > >> I think "order" both captures the spirit intended by the new flow, and >> matches existing terminology at a lot of CAs. It has some homonyms, as >> in "order of operations," but I think those have low enough likelihood >> of confusion that it's okay. >> >> Pretty much any useful string in this space is going to be overloaded. > "The orders" might the applications/requisitions, for example, or the set > of steps required to meet a challenge. You might find a better balance, > but it would always be a balance. > > I've not got any major objection to the change, in other words, but I > don't see much of a benefit. Since I'm hoping we finish soon, re-painting > the bikeshed doesn't strike me as a good use of our energy. > > As an individual, not chair, > > Ted > > >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
