Subject: [Acme] Francesca Palombini's No Objection on draft-ietf-acme-authority-token-07: (with COMMENT)

From: Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2021 03:22:21 -0800

Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-acme-authority-token-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/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-acme-authority-token/

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

Thank you for the work on this document.

I support Ben's DISCUSS, in particular the inconsistencies between definition
and examples for the "atc" claim (array vs object, "ca" defined as 4th optional
field in an array), and his thoughtful COMMENTs, I found myself having the same
questions about some of them, so will be looking out for your answers to those
as well.

Additionally, I would suggest to add a Description column to the IANA ACME
Authority Token Challenge Type Registry, containing some short description of
what the types defined are.

Francesca