Thank you very much Hugo for such a prompt reply! -éric
On 20/05/2019, 17:09, "Hugo Landau" <[email protected]> wrote: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Hugo, thank you for the work put into this document. Adding some examples was a > good idea. > > I found it interesting that the security section represents roughly 50% of the > document ;-) > > I have two comments and one nit. See below. > > == COMMENTS == > > -- Section 2 -- > > Please use RFC 8174 boiler template for this section ;-) Done. > > -- Section 3 -- > > The word 'applicable' is used but never strictly defined. If defined in another > document, please add a reference (perhaps in the section 2), else please define > it. Hm. Reworking this turned out to be tricky. The CAA RFC doesn't really provide much in terms of terminology to hang off of, here, and I don't want to duplicate large amounts of the CAA RFC into this RFC just to express the same concept. After some thinking about it, it felt to me like all possible rewordings of this paragraph that came to mind were more likely to give people the wrong idea than clarify matters. I think this paragraph is superfluous anyway, so I've removed it. > > == NIT == > > -- abstract -- > > Expand CAA, CA in the abstract ? Done. I've also fixed a small bug I noticed, one of the examples hadn't been updated to reflect the switch from "non-acme" to a CA-specific prefix "ca-". You can view the changes here: <https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme-caa/compare/draft-ietf-acme-caa-06...master> I'll roll up these changes into a new I-D barring any further comments in the next 24 hours. _______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
