Hi Murray, Thanks for the review!
> In Section 8.5, what does "SHOULD consider" mean? I suggest lowercasing the "SHOULD". This happens again in Sections 8.9 and 8.9.1. These will be updated to a MUST consider. > I don't understand what "SHOULD wait some (indeterminate) amount of time" in Section 4 means either. It seems peculiar to make an unspecified thing formally optional. Same as above. > The instances of SHOULD and SHOULD NOT in Sections 3.1.2, 3.2, 5, 6.2, and 6.4, seem bare in the sense that I don't know when I might choose to contradict what they say. If we're giving implementers a choice here, we should leave them with some idea under what conditions they might choose to do the opposite of what it says. I will add a note to section 3.1 clarifying the SHOULD. The SHOULD in section 3.2 and 6.2 will be upgraded to a MUST. The should in section 5 does nothing more than make a recommendation to implementors, the reasons an implementor may not support connecting over the Tor network to an ACME server are out of scope of this document. In section 6.4 I believe enough reasons are already. Q ------------------------------ 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. Ar Iau, 9 Ion 2025 am 08:38 Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker < nore...@ietf.org> ysgrifennodd: > Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-acme-onion-05: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-acme-onion/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > In Section 8.5, what does "SHOULD consider" mean? I suggest lowercasing > the > "SHOULD". This happens again in Sections 8.9 and 8.9.1. > > I don't understand what "SHOULD wait some (indeterminate) amount of time" > in > Section 4 means either. It seems peculiar to make an unspecified thing > formally optional. > > The instances of SHOULD and SHOULD NOT in Sections 3.1.2, 3.2, 5, 6.2, and > 6.4, > seem bare in the sense that I don't know when I might choose to contradict > what > they say. If we're giving implementers a choice here, we should leave them > with some idea under what conditions they might choose to do the opposite > of > what it says. > > > >
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list -- acme@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to acme-le...@ietf.org
