Subject: [Acme] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-acme-caa-07: (with COMMENT)

From: Adam Roach via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 10:59:27 -0700

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-acme-caa-07: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-acme-caa/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks to everyone who worked on this extension.

I support Barry's first DISCUSS point.  Beyond that concern, I have only one
comment.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§5.4:

>  Suppose that both CA A and CA B issue account URIs of the form
>
>  "account-id:1234"

This is a little concerning as an example, as "account-id" isn't a registered
URI scheme. Consider instead using:

  urn:example:account-id:1234

---

From: Hugo Landau <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 18:44:22 +0100

>   urn:example:account-id:1234
Done.