Re: [Acme] Post-IETF-96 PRs

2016-08-07 Thread Martin Thomson
On 8 August 2016 at 12:39, Richard Barnes wrote: > So I'm honestly not that convinced that we need versioning at all here. > Maybe we could get away with just versioning the directory? (As I think the > original issue proposed :) ) I believe that it was PHB who requested this

Re: [Acme] Post-IETF-96 PRs

2016-08-07 Thread Richard Barnes
On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 7:28 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: > On 7 August 2016 at 03:46, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews wrote: > >> #162 - Add a protocol version > >> https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/162 > > > > Still thinking about this one. Seems sound at

Re: [Acme] Post-IETF-96 PRs

2016-08-07 Thread Richard Barnes
On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Peter Bowen wrote: > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Richard Barnes wrote: > > Hey all, > > > > I just posted several PRs implementing agreements from the IETF meeting. > > > > #161 - Drop the OOB challenge > >

Re: [Acme] Post-IETF-96 PRs

2016-08-07 Thread Martin Thomson
On 7 August 2016 at 03:46, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews wrote: >> #162 - Add a protocol version >> https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/162 > > Still thinking about this one. Seems sound at first glance, but I'm thinking > about TLS version intolerance and >

Re: [Acme] Terms of service agreement changes

2016-08-07 Thread Richard Barnes
On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Hugo Landau wrote: > On Sat, Aug 06, 2016 at 11:30:25AM -0700, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews wrote: > > Let's Encrypt recently did its first update of its Subscriber Agreement, > > and ran into some incompatibility. The current spec makes it seem like

Re: [Acme] Nonces for GETs

2016-08-07 Thread Richard Barnes
On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews wrote: > At IETF 96 it was proposed to drop this issue: > https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/minutes/minutes-96-acme. > > The rationale from the notes is that nonces are not a scarce resource. > However, cachability and

Re: [Acme] Nonces for GETs

2016-08-07 Thread Martin Thomson
On 7 August 2016 at 04:55, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews wrote: > The rationale from the notes is that nonces are not a scarce resource. > However, cachability and idempotence of GETs were not addressed. I think > it's worth not requiring nonces on GETs purely for those reasons. In >

Re: [Acme] Terms of service agreement changes

2016-08-07 Thread Hugo Landau
On Sat, Aug 06, 2016 at 11:30:25AM -0700, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews wrote: > Let's Encrypt recently did its first update of its Subscriber Agreement, > and ran into some incompatibility. The current spec makes it seem like > the client should update the registration object whenever the Subscriber >