> > 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.
There isn't AFAIK - the closest thing is the list of "boulder divergences" we maintain along with the current-most draft: https://github.com/letsencrypt/boulder/blob/master/docs/acme-divergences.md I'm willing to leave it up to the LE folks if they want to submit a v1 > later for historical purposes. I suspect that since LE & Boulder evolved alongside the drafts its probably more trouble than its worth to try and create a snapshot of a specific point in LE's existence to describe the protocol at that point. On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 11:26 AM, 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 > > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
