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

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2021 14:02:00 -0700

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

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

Thank you for the work put into this document. The usefulness of this
specification is clear and important!

Special thanks for the doc shepherd's write-up as it writes about the WG
consensus/discussion.

Please find below some blocking DISCUSS points, some non-blocking COMMENT
points (but replies would be appreciated), and some nits.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

-- Abstract --
Should "delegated identifier" be more defined ? Honestly, after reading the
abstract, I have no clue...

-- Section 1 --
In "This document is a companion document to [RFC8739]" is "companion" the
right word? I am not a native English speaker but "companion" sounds like the
fates of two documents are bound together, suggest to use "complements" ?

In the abstract CDN is just a use case while, in this introduction section, it
is the main goal.

Please expand "NDC" at first use ? Perhaps moving section 1.1 earlier ?

  "We note that other ongoing efforts address the problem of certificate
   delegation for TLS connections, specifically [I-D.ietf-tls-subcerts]
   and [I-D.mglt-lurk-tls13]."
I am trusting the responsible ADs (SEC & TSV) about having 2+ competing IETF
standards...

-- Section 2 --
It is a little unclear whether there is one NDC (one per CDN) or multiple NDC
(one per edge-cache). The latter could have scalability issues. Section 1.1
seems to indicate the former but it may be ambiguous.

-- Section 2.3.1.2 --
As I am not an expert in CDN, I wonder whether the example entry for
'cname-map' is correct? (I would have used "abc.ido.ndc.example." as the value).

== NITS ==

-- Abstract --
s/This memo defines/This document defines/ AFAIK, the 'memo' wording was used
back in the XXth century ;-)

-- Section 1.1 --
s/symmetry/similarity/ ?

---

From: Yaron Sheffer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2021 15:12:13 +0300

Thank you Éric for your review. We will be tracking it here: https://github.com/yaronf/I-D/issues/176

	Yaron

On 4/8/21, 00:02, "Éric Vyncke via Datatracker" <[email-masked]> wrote:

    Regards,

    -éric

    == COMMENTS ==

    -- Abstract --

    -- Section 1 --

    -- Section 2 --

    -- Section 2.3.1.2 --

    == NITS ==

    -- Abstract --

    -- Section 1.1 --
    s/symmetry/similarity/ ?