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
>
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
>
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
> >
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
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
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
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
>
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