On 03/29/2017 08:31 PM, Hugo Landau wrote: >> What is the rest of the group's thoughts on whether we'd have to restart >> WGLC for this? > I'd hope that if the 'can retry individual challenges' option is chosen > this is considered a minor enough change to avoid restarting WGLC. > > However, it also seems pointless to finalize the ACME specification as > an RFC when we have the opportunity to wait until Let's Encrypt obtains > operational experience in production with the revised specification. > It's a little bizarre that a version of the specification that isn't > going to be standardized as an RFC has a lot more deployment experience > attached to it than a substantially different version with no current > deployment experience. > > It would be a different story if this WG thought it was holding anything > up by virtue of deferring standarization; if another WG was waiting on > an RFC to cite, or so on. But the evidence is that the fact that ACME is > still an I-D hasn't stopped real-world deployment of either CAs (Let's > Encrypt) or a multitude of clients. Thanks for expressing this; I tend to agree, but that makes sense given that I work on Let's Encrypt.
The main countervailing pressure, in my mind, is that other CAs are starting to show interest in ACME, but of course the main reason to use ACME is interop with existing tools. So we want to have something reasonably final (and in production), so that new integrations are built against the final-ish version rather than Boulder's outdated variant as much as possible. However, I think the main gating factor there is, as you say, getting the latest spec into production in Boulder. Which we're working on. :-) _______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
