2015-12-15 17:27 GMT+01:00 Richard Barnes <r...@ipv.sx>: > Thanks for the PR! I agree that having an integrity hash is overkill, > and we should focus on advising CAs. > > That said, the considerations for how CAs track agreements are very > much specific to each CA, so I'm hesitant to have MUST-level > requirements. If you change it to a SHOULD, then I think we're good > to go.
I don't know whether it should be a MUST or SHOULD. It's not only CAs that track agreement, but also the clients. I'd like some additional way to signal to a client that continued usage signifies acceptance of new terms for a given CA. Based on that the client can check for the terms URI every time it starts and update the registration if necessary. Otherwise it would have to error out in a hard way breaking automation.
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
