On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 6:23 AM, Eric Covener <cove...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
I don't know that we want to encourage service providers to make their service unusable in a production headless environment, either. > 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. What about simplifying? [md:warn] [pid 7232:tid 2416] (22)Invalid argument: acme problem urn:acme:error:malformed: Provided agreement URL [https://letsencrypt.org/documents/2017.11.15-LE-SA-v1.2.pdf] does not match current agreement URL [https://letsencrypt.org/documents/LE-SA-v1.2-November-15-2017.pdf] That message could surely offer a pointer to the MDCertificateAgreement directive?