> Am 13.03.2018 um 21:43 schrieb William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>: > >> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 6:23 AM, Eric Covener <cove...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 6:33 AM, Stefan Eissing >> <stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de> wrote: >>> >>>> Am 12.03.2018 um 11:23 schrieb Daniel Gruno <humbed...@apache.org>: >>>> >>>> Would it be possible to just have a link that always points to the >>>> _current_ agreement, much like our docs have a /current/ directory that >>>> always fetches you the current 2.4 docs? >>> >>> More a question for Let's Encrypt than us. Legally, that would make >>> the ToS agreement a bit meaningless, I assume. >> >> Makes sense, and from our side we shouldn't go out of our way to >> encourage some workflow where the agreement isn't being read. > > I don't know that we want to encourage service providers to make > their service unusable in a production headless environment, either
I would consider their service highly usable. And given their numbers and feedback in the security community and from users, almost all seem to agree. Maybe you are not fully aware of how this agreement thing works and how Let‘s Encrypt accounts continue to work once the initial agreement has been made? >> Maybe just some additional text in the module description, including a >> link to https://letsencrypt.org/repository/ >> I think the "prerequisites" we have could be improved with some more >> formatting (maybe pull it out of <note> and into a section, add >> bullets, etc. > > What about simplifying? > > [md:warn] [pid 7232:tid 2416] (22)Invalid argument: acme problem > urn:acme:error:malformed: Provided agreement URL > [https://letsencrypt.org/documents/2017.11.15-LE-SA-v1.2.pdf] does not > match current agreement URL > [https://letsencrypt.org/documents/LE-SA-v1.2-November-15-2017.pdf] > > That message could surely offer a pointer to the > MDCertificateAgreement directive? Good suggestion.
