Hi, Richard, I don’t feel strongly one way or the other, but I prefer to think of what LE deployed as a PoC, like Google’s SPDY to the IETF’s HTTP/2, or like Google’s QUIC to the IETF’s… QUIC. Ot the Oakley protocol to IKE.
But if someone needs LE’s protocol to be retroactively called ACMEv1, I don’t mind. Yoav > On 13 Jun 2017, at 18:26, Richard Barnes <[email protected]> wrote: > > (Everyone get your bike shed paint out....) > > In talking with a few folks around the community, I've heard people refer to > the IETF version of ACME as "v2", where implicitly "v1" is the initial > version deployed by Let's Encrypt and its clients right now. > > How would people feel about reflecting this in the draft / RFC? I've posted > a PR with the changes this would entail: > > https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/321 > <https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/321> > > The only question this raises for me is what to do about v1. Given that > Let's Encrypt has evolved their interface some since the first version, I'm > not sure there's one consolidated spec out there for what they currently have > deployed. So while it would be nice to have a reference to v1 in this > document if we make it v2, I'm not inclined to worry about it too much. I'm > willing to leave it up to the LE folks if they want to submit a v1 later for > historical purposes. > > Any objections to merging the above PR? > > --Richard > > _______________________________________________ > Acme mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
