I think #420 is a good addition and is worth merging once Martin Thomson's review feedback is addressed.
Thanks Richard, Tim. On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 6:04 PM, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <j...@eff.org> wrote: > 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 > > 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 >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Acme mailing listAcme@ietf.orghttps://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