Subject: [Acme] Review of draft-sipos-acme-dtnnodeid-01

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2020 12:50:20 -0400

Document: draft-sipos-acme-dtnnodeid-01
Reviewer: Russ Housley
Date: 2020-08-05

Major Concern:

Section 1: I think that this ACME enrollment mechanism is limited to
"dtn" and "ipn" URIs.  Please say so at the very front of the document.

Section 1: the description stops with the ACME server receiving the
Response Bundle and checking the signature in it.  It should go on and
describe the delivery of the certificate to the DTN node.

Minor Concerns:

Abstract: I find the wording very confusing.  The Introduction makes it
clear that the certificate Subject Alternative Name (SAN) will hold a
Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) that represents the Node ID of a
Delay-Tolerant Networking (DTN) Node.  Please provide the same clarity
in the Abstract.

Nits:

Section 1: please expand "BP" on first use.

The title for Section 3 is "URI Identifier".  I hope you can find a less
redundant way to start this section.

Section 4 includes "... but SHOULD be no shorter than one second."
Please reword as a SHOULD NOT statement.

Section 4 includes "... but SHOULD be no longer than one minute ..."
Again, please reword as a SHOULD NOT statement.

Conclusion

Once the Major Concerns are addressed, I have no objection to the
ACME WG adopting this I-D.