Re: [Acme] Francesca Palombini's Discuss on draft-ietf-acme-star-delegation-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Yaron Sheffer <[e-mail]>]

Hi Francesca,

Thank you for your review and for getting the CBOR community and Carsten involved.

We will be tracking your comments here: https://github.com/yaronf/I-D/issues/173

And Carsten's review of CDDL and JSON Schema here: https://github.com/yaronf/I-D/issues/170

Thanks,
	Yaron

On 4/6/21, 20:09, "Francesca Palombini via Datatracker" <[e-mail]> wrote:

    Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for
    draft-ietf-acme-star-delegation-07: Discuss

    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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
    for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


    The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-acme-star-delegation/



    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    DISCUSS:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    EDIT (06-04-2021): Thank you very much to Carsten Bormann for the CDDL review:
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/23A-PFhRY-pdkg2-Kgcd4jqySVo/ Authors
    - please make sure to answer Carsten's comments (and keep me in cc so I can
    clear my DISCUSS).


    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    COMMENT:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thank you for the work on this document, which I found clear and easy to read.
    You can find some minor comments below. The only one that might require more
    attention is 7. about IANA expert guidelines missing.

    EDIT TO ADD (06-04-2021): I see that Lars has added a discuss about the same
    topic - I support that discuss.

    Francesca

    1. -----

       the ACME CA and waits for the explicit revocation based on CRL and
       OCSP to propagate to the relying parties.

       ...

       result, the TLS connection to the dCDN edge is done with an SNI equal

    FP: Please expand CRL, OCSP and SNI on first use.

    2. -----

       *  delegations (required, string): A URL from which a list of
          delegations configured for this account can be fetched via a POST-
          as-GET request.

    FP: the second occurrence of "delegation" needs a pointer to the next
    subsection - Delegation Objects, otherwise this definition becomes confusing
    (delegations is a URL from which a list of delegations can be fetched).

    3. -----

       An example delegation object is shown in Figure 3.

    FP: please note that the examples are in JSON.

    4. -----

       (Forbidden) and type "urn:ietf:params:acme:error:unknownDelegation".

    FP: suggestion to change to:

       (Forbidden), providing a problem document [RFC7807] with type 
       "urn:ietf:params:acme:error:unknownDelegation", as registered in section 5.5.

    The error type appears later on as well (e.g. section 2.3.2), but even without
    repeating each time, I think this reference at least here where it appears
    first would help the reader.

    5. -----

       The Order object created by the IdO:

       ...

       *  MUST copy the "star-certificate" field from the STAR Order.  The

    FP: (suggestion for clarification) because there are 2 Orders going on in
    sequence, this bullet point and more precisely "from the STAR Order" is
    slightly confusing. You could use Order1 and Order2 as you have used in Figure
    1 to clarify things (I believe this should be "from the STAR Order2 into
    Order1) (Note that this is just a suggestion, the rest of the text is mostly
    clear about which Order it refers to) Otherwise, I think it would be good to
    add "... from the STAR Order into its Order resource." The same comment apply
    to the next occurrence:

       *  MUST copy the "certificate" field from the Order, as well as

    6. -----

       uCDN is configured to delegate to dCDN, and CP is configured to
       delegate to uCDN, both as defined in Section 2.3.1.

    FP: Re Figure 12: I assume that 0. refers to the configuration CP and uCDN
    share? In this case, why is there no arrow between uCDN and dCDN? If my
    assumption is wrong, then what's the meaning of 0?

    7. -----

    FP: This document defines two new registry, one with policy Specification
    required and the other Expert review (both of which will need designated
    experts). https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8126#section-5.3 states that:

       When a designated expert is used, the documentation should give clear
       guidance to the designated expert, laying out criteria for performing
       an evaluation and reasons for rejecting a request.  In the case where

    I have noticed that RFC 8555 only provided guidance for one of its registries,
    and that the registries are quite straight forwards, but I still believe that
    having some guidance for the experts to evaluate requests helps.