Thanks Russ. I've addressed all these in github at: https://github.com/upros/acme-subdomains/blob/master/draft-friel-acme-subdomains.md. I have not pushed out draft-03 yet, lets see what Jacob and Felipe have to say on the related thread about challenge options, and I will incorporate then.
-----Original Message----- From: Acme <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Russ Housley Sent: 05 August 2020 06:44 To: IETF ACME <[email protected]> Subject: [Acme] Review of draft-friel-acme-subdomains-02 Document: draft-friel-acme-subdomains-02 Reviewer: Russ Housley Date: 2020-08-04 Major Concern: The TODO markers regarding wildcard domain names, the 200 response code, and the security considerations should be filled in with strawman text before this I-D is adopted by the ACME WG. Minor Concerns: General: s/certificate authority/certification authority/ (many) Abstract: s/certificate authority policy/certificate policy/ Introduction: s/X.509 (PKIX)/X.509v3 (PKIX) [RFC5280]/ Terminology: Correct CA, please. See above. Terminology: Please add a definition of subdomain. Nits: Section 3: says: 3. client sends POST-as-GET requests to retrieve the "authorizations", with the downloaded "authorization" object(s) containing the "identifier" that the client must prove control of s/client must prove control of/client must prove that they control/ There is something wrong with the table formatting in Section 6.2. _______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme _______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
