Subject: [Acme] Benjamin Kaduk's Yes on draft-ietf-acme-ip-07: (with COMMENT)

From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 18:06:21 -0700

Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-acme-ip-07: Yes

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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 7

There's perhaps some "action at a distance" going on here, in that we
try to apply normative requirements on unrelated things.  Perhaps it's
safer to just say "this document does not define any usage of the
'dns-01' challenge to validate IP addresses.  But if we can definitively
rule out any future use, then it doesn't really matter.

Section 9

Is there anything to say about issuing certificates for
non-publicly-routable IP addresses in terms of ensuring that the ACME
server and client are in the same administrative domain [and enforcing
that by network topology]?