Subject: [Acme] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-acme-caa-06: (with COMMENT)

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 06:11:16 -0700

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-acme-caa-06: 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hugo, thank you for the work put into this document. Adding some examples was a
good idea.

I found it interesting that the security section represents roughly 50% of the
document ;-)

I have two comments and one nit. See below.

== COMMENTS ==

-- Section 2 --

Please use RFC 8174 boiler template for this section ;-)

-- Section 3 --

The word 'applicable' is used but never strictly defined. If defined in another
document, please add a reference (perhaps in the section 2), else please define
it.

== NIT ==

-- abstract --

Expand CAA, CA in the abstract ?

---

From: Hugo Landau <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 16:07:42 +0100

Done.

> document, please add a reference (perhaps in the section 2), else please define
Hm. Reworking this turned out to be tricky. The CAA RFC doesn't really
provide much in terms of terminology to hang off of, here, and I don't
want to duplicate large amounts of the CAA RFC into this RFC just to
express the same concept.

After some thinking about it, it felt to me like all possible rewordings
of this paragraph that came to mind were more likely to give people the
wrong idea than clarify matters. I think this paragraph is superfluous
anyway, so I've removed it.

> Expand CAA, CA in the abstract ?
Done.

I've also fixed a small bug I noticed, one of the examples hadn't been
updated to reflect the switch from "non-acme" to a CA-specific prefix
"ca-".

You can view the changes here:

<https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme-caa/compare/draft-ietf-acme-caa-06...master>

I'll roll up these changes into a new I-D barring any further comments
in the next 24 hours.

---

From: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 16:07:45 +0000

Thank you very much Hugo for such a prompt reply!

-éric

    Done.

    
    Done.