OK, I'm not hearing any real enthusiasm for this idea (except from Daniel). So I'm going to close the PR.
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 6:39 PM, Richard Barnes <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[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
