Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-acme-caa-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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-acme-caa/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks to everyone who worked on this extension. I support Barry's first DISCUSS point. Beyond that concern, I have only one comment. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ยง5.4: > Suppose that both CA A and CA B issue account URIs of the form > > "account-id:1234" This is a little concerning as an example, as "account-id" isn't a registered URI scheme. Consider instead using: urn:example:account-id:1234 _______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
