[Acme] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-acme-ari-08: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-acme-ari-08: 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-ari/



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

Thanks for addressing my previous blocking DISCUSS points, see
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/39amfomGbjKAMTDeAP_Q7mEpg54/

The points below were and are still non-blocking but I sincerely think that the
document readability will be improved if addressed. The text sent by Aaron
about these 2 points would be beneficial to the readers/implementers if
included in a -09. The choice is really up to the author at this point.

## COMMENTS (non-blocking)

### Section 4.1

Also in this section, should the note about prefixing a "00" when the serial
number is a negative number be more than a simple note but normative ? Or if
this is per default in ACME, adding a reference ?

### Section 4.2

Is the first `Conforming clients SHOULD provide this URL to their operator`
correct ? I would assume that this JSON reply is sent by the ACME server
and not by the client.