Subject: [Acme] Registration status changes

From: Roland Bracewell Shoemaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 11:25:06 -0700

draft-03 introduces a 'status' field on the registration object with the
values 'good' or 'deactivated'. I propose two changes to this, using
'valid' instead of 'good', which better matches the other statuses used
elsewhere in the specification and adding language to the new
registration section indicating that if a server requires a user to
agree to terms of service that a third status, 'pending', should be used
until the terms are agreed to.

Any objections/thoughts?

---

From: Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 11:32:23 -0700

On 08/18/2016 11:25 AM, Roland Bracewell Shoemaker wrote:
> elsewhere in the specification

Works for me.

> and adding language to the new

In https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/167 (Simplify
terms-of-service flow), the plan is for servers that require agreement
to require it as part of registration, so you'd never have a pending
registration.

---

From: Roland Bracewell Shoemaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 11:35:58 -0700

> to require it as part of registration, so you'd never have a pending

Ah! That's even better then.

> _______________________________________________
> Acme mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
>

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 14:45:11 -0400

> until the terms are agreed to.

No objection.

I wonder if there is a third status needed.  If someone claims that they lost their account key and the out-of-band process has begun to establish a new one, then neither of these two seems to fit.

Russ