Re: [Acme] Post-IETF-96 PRs

On 9 August 2016 at 02:53, Richard Barnes wrote: > Again, I'm not totally convinced that semantic mismatches are that big a > deal. The "url" parameter already scopes the signed object to a specific > resource, so the only risk would be if that specific resource accepts > different

Re: [Acme] Post-IETF-96 PRs

On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 09:53:07AM -0700, Richard Barnes wrote: > On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 8:29 PM, Martin Thomson > wrote: > > > On 8 August 2016 at 12:39, Richard Barnes wrote: > > > So I'm honestly not that convinced that we need versioning at all here. >

Re: [Acme] Terms of service agreement changes

On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 07:07:35PM -0700, Richard Barnes wrote: > 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, >

Re: [Acme] Post-IETF-96 PRs

On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 8:29 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: > 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

Re: [Acme] Terms of service agreement changes

2016-08-08 4:07 GMT+02:00 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