After consultation with Let's Encrypt developers I opened a new ticket
at their server: https://github.com/letsencrypt/boulder/issues/3547

They seem to be willing to be more forgiving when checking the URL
and accept alternate links to the same document (as used by their site
and which let to our confusion).

They make new releases quite regularly, so it may be available in the
not too distant future.

Cheers, Stefan

> Am 12.03.2018 um 12:23 schrieb Eric Covener <cove...@gmail.com>:
> 
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 6:33 AM, Stefan Eissing
> <stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de> wrote:
>> 
>>> Am 12.03.2018 um 11:23 schrieb Daniel Gruno <humbed...@apache.org>:
>>> 
>>> Would it be possible to just have a link that always points to the
>>> _current_ agreement, much like our docs have a /current/ directory that
>>> always fetches you the current 2.4 docs?
>> 
>> More a question for Let's Encrypt than us. Legally, that would make
>> the ToS agreement a bit meaningless, I assume.
> 
> Makes sense, and from our side we shouldn't go out of our way to
> encourage some workflow where the agreement isn't being read.
> 
> Maybe just some additional text in the module description, including a
> link to https://letsencrypt.org/repository/
> I think the "prerequisites" we have could be improved with some more
> formatting (maybe pull it out of <note> and into a section, add
> bullets, etc.
> 
> I don't think it impacts the release.

Reply via email to