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?

Reply via email to