Changing both "application" -> "order" and "registration" -> "account" actually would be very welcome changes, as those are more familiar terms, imo... but the changes are definitely bikesheds.
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 4:50 PM Richard Barnes <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
