> > 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.
The relatively ad-hoc things that CAs deploy today aren't referred to as ACME, or used by what people refer to as ACME clients. I don't think its a fair comparison to the situation we're in today where there are a number of clients that call themselves "ACME clients" written to work with "ACME v1" who are likely to be confused by the fact their clients don't work out-of-box with IETF ACME. I doubt that there will be any confusion from this being deployed alongside > the proprietary LE protocol I disagree. There is already fairly substantial confusion among client developers, server developers and users about what ACME is and how it relates to the Let's Encrypt service. On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Martin Thomson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[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 >
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
