[Acme] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-acme-integrations-13: (with COMMENT)

Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 02 March 2023 14:31 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-acme-integrations@ietf.org, acme-chairs@ietf.org, acme@ietf.org, decoole@radium.ncsc.mil, decoole@radium.ncsc.mil, mellon@fugue.com, rthalley@gmail.com
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Éric Vyncke <evyncke@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <167776751931.59467.611949021895891363@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2023 06:31:59 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/MUJlmGBmXWZpipV9D2mNMzdmp-8>
Subject: [Acme] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-acme-integrations-13: (with COMMENT)

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-acme-integrations-13: 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-integrations/



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


# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-acme-integrations-13
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document. As usual on this topic, I
support John Scudder's DISCUSS about the use BCP14 uppercase terms in an
informational document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Deb Cooley for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the
WG consensus **albeit** it lacks the justification of the intended status.

Other thanks to Ted Lemon, the DNS directorate reviewer, please consider this
int-dir review as if it was mine:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-acme-integrations-13-dnsdir-telechat-lemon-2023-03-01/
(it is dated of yesterday, but I still have to read authors' reply)

Please note that Bob Halley is the Internet directorate reviewer (at my
request) and you may want to consider this int-dir review as well when it will
be available (no need to wait for it though):
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-acme-integrations/reviewrequest/17100/

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## COMMENTS

### Abstract

Should the abstract add references to relevant RFC and/or expand the acronyms ?
This would help readers to find this document. They are only expanded in
section 2.

### Section 1

In this section, please expand EST, BRSKI, and TEAP.

`enable automated certificate enrollment for devices` should devices be
qualified ? I.e., devices w/o a UI ?

### Section 2

`portion of the graph of all possible domain names` AFAIK the graph of all
possible domain names is actually a tree (i.e., a restricted graph).

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues.

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments

[Acme] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-a… Éric Vyncke via Datatracker