I don't think we should adopt this until the Recurring Orders stuff has been split out.
I'm still not convinced of the need for the other interface here, much less the need to do it in this WG. On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 4:47 PM, Russ Housley <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 08/06/2017, 20:56, "Acme on behalf of Russ Housley" < > [email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: > >> After very quickly looking at the document, I am not clear which > >> parts will make up the ACME extensions. I need more clarity to > >> offer an opinion. > > > > The new scope would be the extension to ACME that allows automatic > > renewal of the order, i.e., sections 3.4 and 3.5 of the current draft. > > Thanks. This seems like a reasonable way to extend the ACME protocol to > handle Recurring Orders > > After reading those two sections, I looked at the discussion of extensions > in draft-ietf-acme-acme, and there could be a bit of clarity added there. > Particularly, each place that the word extension is used, it should be very > clear whether the text is talking about an certificate extension, and TLS > protocol extension, or an extension to the ACME protocol. All of them come > up in that document. > > Russ > _______________________________________________ > Acme mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme >
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
