On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 8:26 AM, Richard Barnes <[email protected]> wrote: > (Everyone get your bike shed paint out....) > > The IETF logo has a goldenrod-colored network path in it--how about that? Or that pay lavender?
> 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 > > I would personally prefer this to be "Automatic Certificate Management Environment (ACME), IETF Version One". That's clear about where we are and let's us finesse the question of what version or version there were prior to the IETF version set starting. As you note, there are potentially multiple versions of the non-IETF version, given the evolution which has occurred. > 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? > > In case it was not clear, my opinion above was as an individual. Ted > --Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > Acme mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme > >
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
