Hi Deb, I have raised github issues for all these items: https://github.com/upros/acme-integrations/issues
I will get these addressed later this week. Thanks for the review. Owen From: Acme <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Deb Cooley Sent: 27 November 2021 19:43 To: [email protected] Cc: Cooley, Dorothy E <[email protected]> Subject: [Acme] comments on: draft-ietf-acme-integrations-05 No hats (oh that was fun!). Most of these are very minor. In full disclosure, I don't have a ton of experience on either ACME message exchanges or TEAP: Section 2: I like the DNS terminology (I can’t say if they are correct). For me, they are clear and easy to understand. Section 2: CMS – spell this out the first time. Section 3: This might be picky, but sometimes it is difficult to distinguish between ACME the protocol and ACME the CA. For example, the call flow chart has a node ‘ACME’, this is the CA, correct? If you wanted to clarify this, I think it would be as easy to change the node to ‘ACME CA’. Again, I will freely admit this might be picky… Section 4, para 1: Spell out MASA somewhere. Maybe in the terms in Section 2. I know MASA is defined in BRSKI, but this would at least give the reader a hint. Section 6: TLV? (This means tag length value, but clearly that is wrong). I know nothing about TEAP, but does the server initiate normally? (I’m used to seeing client-initiated exchanges) And this is not for this document, per se, but does TEAP use TLS1.2 (it doesn’t look like TLS 1.3 – change cipher spec, for example)? Deb Cooley [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
