Re: [Acme] Comments on ACME draft

[Daniel McCarney]

I think #420 is a good addition and is worth merging once Martin Thomson's
review feedback is addressed.

Thanks Richard, Tim.


On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 6:04 PM, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews  wrote:

> I agree, these seem worth merging.
>
> On 04/11/2018 01:56 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
>
> Here's a quick PR implementing Tim's proposed changes.
>
> https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/420
>
> Personally, these seem fine to me.  I would be in favor of merging the PR.
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 4:41 PM, Tim Hollebeek  > wrote:
>
>>
>> I think the draft is in very good shape.
>>
>> Unfortunately I didn't have as much time to go through it as I would have
>> liked, but I did find two things that are probably worth fixing:
>>
>> 1. "ACME clients SHOULD send a User-Agent header"
>>
>> I think there's no value in omitting it, so it should be changed to a
>> MUST.
>>
>> 2. Using the same key pair for both the account key pair and the
>> certificate
>> key pair is a really bad idea.
>>
>> This should either be mentioned in the Operational Considerations, or
>> banned
>> outright.
>>
>> -Tim
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Acme mailing list
>> Acme@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
>>
>>
>
>
> ___
> Acme mailing listAcme@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
>
>
>
> ___
> Acme mailing list
> Acme@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
>
>
___
Acme mailing list
Acme@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme

Re: [Acme] Comments on ACME draft

[Jacob Hoffman-Andrews]

I agree, these seem worth merging.


On 04/11/2018 01:56 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
> Here's a quick PR implementing Tim's proposed changes.
>
> https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/420
>
> Personally, these seem fine to me.  I would be in favor of merging the PR.
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 4:41 PM, Tim Hollebeek
> > wrote:
>
>
> I think the draft is in very good shape.
>
> Unfortunately I didn't have as much time to go through it as I
> would have
> liked, but I did find two things that are probably worth fixing:
>
> 1. "ACME clients SHOULD send a User-Agent header"
>
> I think there's no value in omitting it, so it should be changed
> to a MUST.
>
> 2. Using the same key pair for both the account key pair and the
> certificate
> key pair is a really bad idea.
>
> This should either be mentioned in the Operational Considerations,
> or banned
> outright.
>
> -Tim
>
>
> ___
> Acme mailing list
> Acme@ietf.org 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
> 
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Acme mailing list
> Acme@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme

___
Acme mailing list
Acme@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme

Re: [Acme] Comments on ACME draft

[Richard Barnes]

Here's a quick PR implementing Tim's proposed changes.

https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/420

Personally, these seem fine to me.  I would be in favor of merging the PR.


On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 4:41 PM, Tim Hollebeek 
wrote:

>
> I think the draft is in very good shape.
>
> Unfortunately I didn't have as much time to go through it as I would have
> liked, but I did find two things that are probably worth fixing:
>
> 1. "ACME clients SHOULD send a User-Agent header"
>
> I think there's no value in omitting it, so it should be changed to a MUST.
>
> 2. Using the same key pair for both the account key pair and the
> certificate
> key pair is a really bad idea.
>
> This should either be mentioned in the Operational Considerations, or
> banned
> outright.
>
> -Tim
>
>
> ___
> Acme mailing list
> Acme@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
>
>
___
Acme mailing list
Acme@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme