Subject: [Acme] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-acme-authority-token-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2021 21:19:43 -0800

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-acme-authority-token-07: Discuss

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/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The examples in Section 4 make use of a function called "base64url" which is
defined in RFC 4648.  Do we not need a normative reference to that document?

There was some chatter from the ARTART reviewer (review still pending) that
suggested some confusion around validating the examples, and this was part of
it.

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

I suggest that Section 7.1 should explicitly reference "the ACME Validation
Methods sub-registry of the Automated Certificate Management Environment (ACME)
Protocol registry group" or something like that.  Also, I concur with
Francesca's suggestion regarding this section.