Re: [Acme] v2

OK, I'm not hearing any real enthusiasm for this idea (except from Daniel). So I'm going to close the PR. On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 6:39 PM, Richard Barnes <r...@ipv.sx> wrote: > For some context: https://letsencrypt.org/2017/06/14/acme-v2-api.html > > To be clear about my op

Re: [Acme] v2

I agree with MT here. We should just name it v1. That's what IETF change control means On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 5:54 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: > I don't see the distinction between what LE deploy and ACME as defined > by the IETF being any different to the distinction

Re: [Acme] v2

> > Given that Let's Encrypt has evolved their interface some since the first > version, I'm not sure there's one consolidated spec out there for what they > currently have deployed. There isn't AFAIK - the closest thing is the list of "boulder divergences" we maintain along with the

Re: [Acme] v2

I don't see the distinction between what LE deploy and ACME as defined by the IETF being any different to the distinction between whatever any other CA currently deploy and the IETF spec. It's a thing that exists, but I see no reason to accord the LE proprietary protocol any special status other

Re: [Acme] v2

On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 8:26 AM, Richard Barnes wrote: > (Everyone get your bike shed paint out) > > The IETF logo has a goldenrod-colored network path in it--how about that? Or that pay lavender? > In talking with a few folks around the community, I've heard people refer > to

[Acme] v2

(Everyone get your bike shed paint out) In talking with a few folks around the community, I've heard people refer to the IETF version of ACME as "v2", where implicitly "v1" is the initial version deployed by Let's Encrypt and its clients right now. How would people feel about reflecting this