Re: [Acme] Agreement integrity checksum

Michael Tandy wrote: >  > 6. People are already writing client software; maybe it's too late to > update the spec for such a marginal improvement. > > What do you think? If we don't fix it now, a few years later we will not having changed it now that it still is "not too late". IMHO the spec

Re: [Acme] Agreement integrity checksum

Two comments: Echoing an etag would be easier. SHA-512 is overkill. On 9 December 2015 at 10:15, Michael Tandy wrote: > Currently in the new-reg stage, the client POSTs a signed message, which may > contain the URI of a user agreement. If the content of the URL changes, the