[Acme] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-suchan-acme-onion-00.txt

[Seo Suchan <[e-mail]>]

I'm new to rfc draft thing: is this right way to suggest a new draft?

in appendix I made some questions. copyting them here:

should this be about onion address, or all kind of alternative DNS systems?
should identifier type and challenge type include or strip -v3 tag from 
its name? if we include that how about this doc name itself? http-01 and 
tls-alpn-01 over tor will work as well for like onion address V2 or V12, 
but csr challenge may not. but it's reasonable to ask same identifier 
type should give same set of challenges.
should the as rigid as complying this will make comply CA/B Baseline 
requirement?
while type onion domain name just full onion v3 name itself with example 
subdomain will exceed rfc line limit. but using ... doesn't right in 
context of domain name. any alternative to express truncated FQDN? would 
"example.onion" work while it wouldn't be valid onion name?

-------- forwarded message --------
title: 	New Version Notification for draft-suchan-acme-onion-00.txt
date: 	Tue, 10 May 2022 19:04:01 -0700
sender: 	[e-mail]
to: 	Seo Suchan <[e-mail]>




A new version of I-D, draft-suchan-acme-onion-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Seo Suchan and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name: draft-suchan-acme-onion
Revision: 00
Title: Automated Certificate Management Environment (ACME) Onion 
Identifier Validation Extension
Document date: 2022-05-10
Group: Individual Submission
Pages: 7
URL: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-suchan-acme-onion-00.txt
Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-suchan-acme-onion/
Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-suchan-acme-onion


Abstract:
This document specifies identifiers and challenges required to enable
the Automated Certificate Management Environment (ACME) to issue
certificates for Tor Project's onion V3 addresses.