Reading this PR again, I think I can live with it as is. The caveat "in a way that requires an agreement update" makes clear that this is a way for CAs to trigger clients to update. I went ahead and merged it. Thanks!
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Niklas Keller <m...@kelunik.com> wrote: > 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
