Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Implement draft-acme-profiles-00 #25

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

aarongable
Copy link

The ACME Profiles draft describes a way for ACME Servers to advertise different certificate profiles that they're willing to issue. For example, a Server might advertise a "classic" profile with 90-day validity periods and OCSP URLs, and a "short-lived" profile with 6-day validity and no OCSP URLs. The draft also describes how a client can present these profiles to its operator and select a profile when making a new-order request.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-aaron-acme-profiles/

@aarongable aarongable force-pushed the draft-acme-profiles-00 branch from 176245e to 10c4898 Compare December 12, 2024 00:23
The ACME Profiles draft describes a way for ACME Servers to advertise
different certificate profiles that they're willing to issue. For
example, a Server might advertise a "classic" profile with 90-day
validity periods and OCSP URLs, and a "short-lived" profile with 6-day
validity and no OCSP URLs. The draft also describes how a client can
present these profiles to its operator and select a profile when making
a new-order request.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-aaron-acme-profiles/
@aarongable aarongable force-pushed the draft-acme-profiles-00 branch from 10c4898 to 1d76394 Compare December 12, 2024 00:29
@aarongable aarongable marked this pull request as ready for review December 12, 2024 00:29
@eggsampler
Copy link
Owner

Cheers! I will check this out tomorrow.

Update to reduce function signature changes
@eggsampler
Copy link
Owner

I've made a few changes to minimise any changes to existing function signatures so don't need to bump any major version. This looks a bit better to me and appears to work ok.

@aarongable if you get a chance to test this please let me know and I'll merge it in - thankyou!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants