Subject: Re: [Acme] Proactive vs On-Finalization Certificate Issuance

From: Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 14:08:13 -0700

Haven't heard any opposition on this, so we're merging, with some minor
copy-edits.

On 09/23/2016 03:37 PM, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews wrote:
> On 09/20/2016 01:44 PM, Daniel McCarney wrote:
>> Based on the discussion on this thread it seems there is more support
>> for the proactive approach. Speaking on behalf of Let's Encrypt and the
>> Boulder developers we're willing to compromise and support proactive
>> issuance as the sole issuance method in order to simplify the protocol &
>> implementations.
>>
>> I opened a PR [0] that changes the language around certificate issuance
>> to reflect that the server MUST issue the certificate proactively once
>> all the required challenges for an application have been fulfilled.
>>
>> I think this should wrap up the discussion in a way that is satisfying
>> for everyone that has voiced an opinion so far. Thanks!
>>
>> [0]: https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/191
> This looks good to me.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Acme mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
>