Hi Murray,
Thank you for the comments! I have merged these suggestions into the
working copy <https://github.com/aarongable/draft-acme-ari/pull/95>, and
responded inline below.
On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 11:18 PM Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <
nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
> Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-acme-ari-07: Discuss
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Section 7.2 declares a new "Specification Required" registry. However, it
> doesn't provide any advice to the Designated Experts, which is strongly
> recommended by RFC 8126, Section 4.6.
>
Thank you for pointing this out! I've added some advice here, but the
examples linked from RFC 8126 Section 4.6 don't seem to provide much
guidance to their designated experts, so I feel like I'm flying somewhat
blind here. Let me know what you think.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Why is the SHOULD in Section 4.3 only a SHOULD? When would you
> legitimately do
> something other than what it says?
>
> I have the same question about the SHOULDs in Sections 4.3.2, 4.3.3, and 5.
>
These are good points. Most of these requirements already have other
qualifiers ("reasonable"), so making these MUSTs makes sense. I've left
just a few as SHOULDs, for example "clients SHOULD do exponential backoff"
because a client may have some other reasonable non-exponential backoff
scheme it prefers.
Thanks again,
Aaron
_______________________________________________
Acme mailing list -- acme@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to acme-le...@ietf.org
