I don't see the distinction between what LE deploy and ACME as defined by the IETF being any different to the distinction between whatever any other CA currently deploy and the IETF spec. It's a thing that exists, but I see no reason to accord the LE proprietary protocol any special status other than by acknowledging provenance.
This is the IETF version of ACME, and as such it needs no version qualification. I doubt that there will be any confusion from this being deployed alongside the proprietary LE protocol. On 13 June 2017 at 16:26, Richard Barnes <r...@ipv.sx> 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 > > 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 > Acme@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme > _______________________________________________ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
