Subject: Re: [Acme] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-acme-star-delegation-08.txt

From: Thomas Fossati <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 18:03:57 +0000

Hi all,

We have just published version -08 of the ACME delegation draft [0].

We think it addresses the feedback we received from the IESG (all the
DISCUSS positions as well as the vast majority of the COMMENTs), plus
Carsten's review over the CDDL and JSON-schema bits, plus Richard's IANA
Expert review.

In particular, see below for a summary of the three main DISCUSS
positions and the corresponding actions:
* Missing IANA expert guidance (Lars and Francesca): added;
* CDDL and JSON-schema review comments (Francesca): addressed Carsten's
  input;
* Delegation scope (Richard): moved from per-identifier to per-order.

It took us a while, apologies for the delay, and many thanks to all
involved.

We have tracked each of the reviews in separate Github issues [1], which
you can use (if you want to) as a starting point to follow any further
discussion inter nos, and the resulting edits.  Otherwise you can have a
look at the massive diff [2].  Yet another alternative is the clean,
synoptic view of the changes in Appendix A.1 [3].

We will follow up on Ben's review in a separate thread as it may require
some further back and forth.

Cheers, thanks!

[0] https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-acme-star-delegation-08.html
[1] https://github.com/yaronf/I-D/issues?q=is%3Aissue+label%3A%22ACME+STAR+Delegation%22+and+label%3A%22IESG+review%22
[2] https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-acme-star-delegation-08
[3] https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-acme-star-delegation-08.html#section-a.1

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.

---

From: Thomas Fossati <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 12:02:39 +0000

(Apologies for top-posting.)

Due to an unintended char swap we managed to reference an ICN RFC.

The error has been fixed in the working copy.