Thanks Deb for the very thorough check. I've pushed -04 addressing your comments.
For section 3.2 on bytes, the data type is obvious from "OCTET STRING" in the ASN.1 - so I haven't made any changes there. ------------------------------ Any statements contained in this email are personal to the author and are not necessarily the statements of the company unless specifically stated. AS207960 Cyfyngedig, having a registered office at 13 Pen-y-lan Terrace, Caerdydd, Cymru, CF23 9EU, trading as Glauca Digital, is a company registered in Wales under № 12417574 <https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/12417574>, LEI 875500FXNCJPAPF3PD10. ICO register №: ZA782876 <https://ico.org.uk/ESDWebPages/Entry/ZA782876>. UK VAT №: GB378323867. EU VAT №: EU372013983. Turkish VAT №: 0861333524. South Korean VAT №: 522-80-03080. AS207960 Ewrop OÜ, having a registered office at Lääne-Viru maakond, Tapa vald, Porkuni küla, Lossi tn 1, 46001, trading as Glauca Digital, is a company registered in Estonia under № 16755226. Estonian VAT №: EE102625532. Glauca Digital and the Glauca logo are registered trademarks in the UK, under № UK00003718474 and № UK00003718468, respectively. On Wed, 6 Nov 2024 at 15:20, Deb Cooley <debcool...@gmail.com> wrote: > Before I click the button to put this draft into IETF last call, I have a > few easy comments: > > ------------------------------------------------ > Section 2: The way to avoid an error by idnits is to say: "described in > BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174]" where the two RFCs in [] are linked. > > Section 3.1.2: Someone on the IESG may comment about needing text to > describe why one might not follow redirects, or why a server might not > honor those. (SHOULDs in the second paragraph). > > Section 3.2, nonce: "A response generating using this nonce MUST NOT be > accepted by the ACME server if the nonce was generated more than 30 days > ago." > 1. Typo: 'response generating'? should be 'response generated'? or > something else? > 2. How will the server (?) know the nonce was generated more than 30 days > ago? (and if there is a time stamp on the nonce, how will the server know > that the client isn't lying?) (and if the server generates the nonce, but > the client doesn't respond w/in 30 days, then this needs to be more clear) > > Section 3.2, caSigningNonce: bytes? Maybe bits?...or maybe binary? Or is > it obvious? > > Section 3.2, 'Client respond with ...: Typo - either 'clients respond' or > 'client responds'. > > Section 6.1, last sentence: There is a 'MUST not'. I'm assuming this > should be 'MUST NOT'. (again an idnits flag) > -------------------------------------------- > > Thanks for doing the work on this draft! > > Deb >
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list -- acme@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to acme-le...@ietf.org
