Subject: [Acme] Application -> order

From: Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 20:06:22 -0800

Hi all,

I've been putting off this conversation because it is doomed to become a
bikeshed, but I am proposing to rename Applications to Orders.

The reason: ACME is intended, among other things, to simplify the
certificate issuance and deployment process. That includes being
accessible to people who don't have a lot of time to learn about the
internals of ACME. The term "application" is heavily overloaded, and
users might mistake it for the software used to access ACME. So saying
"what is the URL for your application," for instance, could mean
https://certbot.eff.org/ OR
https://acme-v01.api.letsencrypt.org/application/123.

I think "order" both captures the spirit intended by the new flow, and
matches existing terminology at a lot of CAs. It has some homonyms, as
in "order of operations," but I think those have low enough likelihood
of confusion that it's okay.

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 15:13:07 +0900

> bikeshed, but I am proposing to rename Applications to Orders.
So, I have to thoroughly agree that this is a bikeshed.

> internals of ACME.

Are you thinking of implementers or folks using ACME to get a certificate?

The term "application" is heavily overloaded, and
> https://acme-v01.api.letsencrypt.org/application/123.
It is overloaded, but the document is pretty good about saying "application
for a certificate" or "application for issuance".  But those phrases are
really intended to be consumed by implementers.  I don't think you have to
reuse that term in your user-facing documentation, and localization will
require taking up that  problem in any case.

> Pretty much any useful string in this space is going to be overloaded.
"The orders" might the applications/requisitions, for example, or the set
of steps required to meet a challenge.  You might find a better balance,
but it would always be a balance.

I've not got any major objection to the change, in other words, but I don't
see much of a benefit.  Since I'm hoping we finish soon, re-painting the
bikeshed doesn't strike me as a good use of our energy.

As an individual, not chair,

Ted

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

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 16:50:41 +0900

I really don't care.  If people like "order", we can do a global search and
replace, and hope the RFC Editor will catch the ones we miss.

While we're at it, the bikeshed I've been caching is "registration" ->
"account".  Seems like normal people think of "registration" as something
you do once, and an "account" as the thing it creates.  That's why we refer
to an "account key", for example.

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Ted Hardie <[email-masked]> wrote:

> It is overloaded, but the document is pretty good about saying
> "application for a certificate" or "application for issuance".  But those
> phrases are really intended to be consumed by implementers.  I don't think
> you have to reuse that term in your user-facing documentation, and
> localization will require taking up that  problem in any case.
>
>
> I've not got any major objection to the change, in other words, but I
> don't see much of a benefit.  Since I'm hoping we finish soon, re-painting
> the bikeshed doesn't strike me as a good use of our energy.
>

---

From: Clint Wilson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 08:25:34 +0000

Changing both "application" -> "order" and "registration" -> "account"
actually would be very welcome changes, as those are more familiar terms,
imo... but the changes are definitely bikesheds.

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 4:50 PM Richard Barnes <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I really don't care.  If people like "order", we can do a global search
> and replace, and hope the RFC Editor will catch the ones we miss.
>

---

From: Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 16:49:15 -0800

On 11/14/2016 11:50 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
> "account".  Seems like normal people think of "registration" as
> something you do once, and an "account" as the thing it creates. 
> That's why we refer to an "account key", for example.
Strong agree on "registration" -> "account". Let's do both.

> Are you thinking of implementers or folks using ACME to get a certificate?

I'm thinking of folks using ACME to get a certificate (Subscribers). I
can confirm from doing customer support in Let's Encrypt's forums that
the underlying ACME notions do come up from time to time. We sometimes
need to ask people for the URLs of authorizations from their logs, for
instance. All abstractions are leaky, unfortunately.