Subject: [Acme] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-acme-ip-07: (with COMMENT)

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 14:09:40 -0700

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-acme-ip-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-ip/

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

Short and useful document: thank you for writing it.

No need to reply to my two questions, but, I would appreciate your answers:
1) why using a tag "ip" rather than "address" ?
2) unsure whether it is doable, but, why only allowing /32 or /128 addresses? A
server can listen to a /64 (for some specific applications), so, requesting a
/64 via ACME would be useful (challenge could be done via a random address out
of this /64 for example)

Regards

-éric