For some context: https://letsencrypt.org/2017/06/14/acme-v2-api.html
To be clear about my opinion here: I'm not super enthusiastic about v2; I think we can muddle through the transition just fine. But if people feel strongly that it would help to have a clear version (there's not even a "v1" notation right now), that would be OK with me. On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 4:49 AM, Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: > I agree with MT here. We should just name it v1. That's what IETF change > control means > > On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 5:54 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thom...@gmail.com> > 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 <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 >> > >
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
