Re: [Acme] AD Review of draft-ietf-acme-email-smime-07

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Hi Roman,

Thank you for your detailed review.

On 22/05/2020 15:54, Roman Danyliw wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I completed my AD review of draft-ietf-acme-email-smime-07.  Thanks for the work on this document.  Here is my feedback:
>
> ** What was the thinking behind the document status being informational?
I don't think there was much thought or discussion of this point. I am 
flexible. I think when I started it was not very clear how much 
support/interest there were in this, but I noticed more interest over time.
> ** Section 3.1.  This section has no (normative) guidance on populating the To and From fields.

The To is the email address of the entity which requested S/MIME 
certificate issuance. I will clarify that.

There is no guidance regarding the From, as it is implementation choice. 
(I am not a fan of mandating specific email address for this, like 
postmaster@<domain>) Do you think this needs to be stated explicitly?

> ** Section 3.1.  Step 5.  Per "If S/MIME signing is used to prove authenticity of the challenge message, then multipart/signed or "application/pkcs7-mime; smime-type=signed-data;" media type should  be used", is there is a reason that this should is not normative (i.e., SHOULD)?
This is just restating requirements from other documents, but also 
emphasizing that both common alternatives are allowed here. I don't 
think this needs normative language.
> ** Section 6.
>
> -- Recommend explicitly naming the registries being updated
> -- Per the challenge type, all of the fields in the registry aren't described here
I will have a look at these.
> -- Per the challenge type, the text in Section 3 says that the challenge type is "email-reply-00" (not "email-reply" as described here)
Thank you for spotting this, I need to make sure that it is the same 
everywhere. I've  changed the document to say "email-reply" everywhere.
> I recommend something like the following:
> NEW:
> 6.1.  Identifier Type
>
> Per this document, a new type has been added to the "ACME Identifier Types" registry defined in Section 9.7.7 of [RFC8555] with Label "email" and a Reference to this document.
>
> 6.2.  Challenge Types
>
> Per this document, a new entry have been added to the "ACME Validation Methods" registry defined in Section 9.7.8 of [RFC8555].  This entry is as follows:
>
>             +-------------+-----------------+------+-----------+
>             | Label       | Identifier Type | ACME | Reference |
>             +=============+=================+======+===========+
>             | email-reply-00 | email              | Y    | This document  |
>             +-------------+-----------------+------+-----------+
>
> ** Section 7.  Per "Any claims about the correctness or    fitness-for-purpose of the email address must be otherwise assured", I don't follow the intent of this text.  For example, what is the "correctness ... of the email address"?  What is meant by "assurances"?
>
> ** Editorial nits:
> -- Section 3.  Typo. s/posession/posession/
I think you meant "possession". Fixed.
> -- Section 4.  As this document is now headed out of the WG, it seems like it should be removed.
Removed.
> -- Section 7.  Typo. s/can can/can/
Fixed.
> -- Section 7. Editorial.  For readability, I would avoid nested parentheses.
>
> OLD
> (by posessing user's password or a secret derived from it that can give read and reply access ("password equivalent" information), or by being given permissions to act on user's behalf using email delegation feature)
>
> NEW
> (by possessing a user's password or a secret derived from it that can give read and reply access, such as "password equivalent" information; or by being given permissions to act on user's behalf using email delegation feature)

Done.


Best Regards,

Alexey