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

From: Lars Eggert via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 03:31:56 -0800

Lars Eggert 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This document seems to have unresolved IANA issues.

In Section 7.1, you might want to include a specific "Note to the RFC Editor"
instructing them on how to handle "[RFCThis]".

Thanks to Linda Dunbar for their General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/aG97YZgQmi6tGHVt--QW3dV0rfY).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

Section 1. , paragraph 3, nit:
> cture for Authority Tokens, defines a the Authority Token format along with a
>                                     ^^^^^
Two determiners in a row. Choose either "a" or "the".

Section 3. , paragraph 4, nit:
> r a number of different namespaces; other might be specific to a particular t
>                                     ^^^^^
It seems that the plural noun "others" fits better in this context.