[Acme] Re: [IANA #1451549] expert review for draft-ietf-acme-device-attest (acme)

[Aaron Gable <[e-mail]>]

Hi David,

I have a few comments, but all are minor and I expect they can easily be
addressed in a new draft version as part of IETF Last Call.

1. The draft declares a new entry `badAttestationStatement` to be added to
the ACME Error Types registry. However, the body of the draft never
specifies when an ACME Server SHOULD or MUST return this new error type.

2. Typo: the draft says that the above entry should be added to the "ACME
Error Type" registry; it is actually named the "ACME Error Types" (note the
plural) registry. This sentence also doesn't have the same structure/syntax
as the nearly-identical sentences in the two previous sections, but that's
more of a style nit.

3. The document registers two new identifier types (hardware-module and
permanent-identifier), and provides instructions for how to encode them
both in ACME requests and in x.509 certificates. However, the ABNF provided
for doing so appears to reinvent the wheel: the "assigner-value" and
"hw-type-value" ABNF tags are intended to represent OIDs, but RFC 3061
already defines a (slightly different!) ABNF syntax for matching OIDs. I
suggest that the authors normatively reference that ABNF instead, as the
draft's current ABNF includes bugs like allowing leading zeroes.

Assuming these minor fixes are made, the IANA registrations look good to me.

Thanks,
Aaron

On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 12:35 PM David Dong via RT <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Richard, Aaron,
>
> Just a follow-up on this; thank you!
>
> Best regards,
>
> David Dong
> IANA Services Sr. Specialist
>
> On Wed May 06 21:47:26 2026, david.dong wrote:
> > Hi Richard, Aaron,
> >
> > Just to note, you had previously reviewed -01 of this document and
> > provided feedback; there looks to be a new Validation Method in -04
> > and changes to the document.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > David Dong
> > IANA Services Sr. Specialist
> >
> > On Wed May 06 21:41:11 2026, david.dong wrote:
> > > Dear Richard Barnes, Aaron Gable (cc: acme WG),
> > >
> > > As the designated experts for the ACME Identifier Types, ACME
> > > Validation Methods and ACME Error Types registries, can you review
> > > the
> > > proposed registrations in draft-ietf-acme-device-attest-04 for us?
> > > Please see:
> > >
> > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-acme-device-attest/
> > >
> > > The due date is May 20th.
> > >
> > > If this is OK, when the IESG approves the document for publication,
> > > we'll make the registrations at:
> > >
> > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/acme/
> > >
> > > When the review is complete (or, if you have concerns that need to be
> > > addressed, when the initial review is complete), we'll update the
> > > Datatracker's "IANA expert review" state and send any comments to the
> > > authors. Unless you ask us to wait for other reviewers, we'll act on
> > > the first review we receive.
> > >
> > > With thanks,
> > >
> > > David Dong
> > > IANA Services Sr. Specialist
>
>