I agree, these seem worth merging.

On 04/11/2018 01:56 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
> Here's a quick PR implementing Tim's proposed changes.
>
> https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/420
>
> Personally, these seem fine to me.  I would be in favor of merging the PR.
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 4:41 PM, Tim Hollebeek
> <tim.holleb...@digicert.com <mailto:tim.holleb...@digicert.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     I think the draft is in very good shape.
>
>     Unfortunately I didn't have as much time to go through it as I
>     would have
>     liked, but I did find two things that are probably worth fixing:
>
>     1. "ACME clients SHOULD send a User-Agent header"
>
>     I think there's no value in omitting it, so it should be changed
>     to a MUST.
>
>     2. Using the same key pair for both the account key pair and the
>     certificate
>     key pair is a really bad idea.
>
>     This should either be mentioned in the Operational Considerations,
>     or banned
>     outright.
>
>     -Tim
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Acme mailing list
>     Acme@ietf.org <mailto:Acme@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
>     <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

Reply via email to