Re: [Acme] AD review: draft-ietf-acme-ip-05

[Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>]

Hi Roland!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roland Bracewell Shoemaker [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2019 7:46 PM
> To: Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Acme] AD review: draft-ietf-acme-ip-05
> 
> Hey Roman,
> 
> Sorry for the lag on this, I’ve been occupied by non-IETF work recently.

It's now my turn to apologize for the delay.

> I’ve done a pass based on your comments. I’m slightly confused about what
> you mean by including the clarify suggested in the previous AD review thread
> with regard to section 6 though. I believe the update in the -05 rev to section
> 6 clarified this ambiguity around the reverse mapping and SNI, do you think it
> still needs further work? I’ve pushed a branch with all of the suggested
> changes here: https://github.com/rolandshoemaker/acme-ip-
> validation/compare/ad-review-feedback-a

Thanks for the changes suggested by this branch.  They address my concerns.  Please do publish this as -06 and I'll progress it to IETF LC.

Regards,
Roman

> If you no one has any objections to these updates I’ll submit a -06 rev with
> them.
> 
> > On Apr 16, 2019, at 10:42 AM, Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > I'm pickup up where ekr left off on draft-ietf-acme-ip.  I see that -05
> addressed some of the feedback from:
> >
> >
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/bGQtdDZ8i75t3dCt3EjPHxsGoG
> 4
> >
> > I have a few other items:
> >
> > (1) A bit of clean-up is needed in the references:
> > ** [FIPS180-4] [RFC4291] [RFC4648]  appear in the references but are not
> cited in the text
> > ** [I-D.ietf-acme-acme] is now RFC8555

Ack.  Thanks for this update.

> > (2) Missing security considerations.  It appears that in pruning the text from
> -04 to -05, this required section was dropped.  Among other things, please
> include the clarity suggested here:
> >
> >
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/j8peTskrxupK0AyJyJomS99iOqw
>
> > (3) Section 8.1 -- I recommend clearer language in the IANA considerations
> 8.1 by fully spelling out the registry names and ensure the registry column
> names align with this text:
> >
> > OLD: Adds a new type to the Identifier list defined in Section 9.7.7 of [I-
> D.ietf-acme-acme] with the label "ip" and reference I-D.ietf-acme-ip.
> > NEW: Adds a new type to the "ACME Identifier Types" registry defined in
> Section 9.7.7 of [RFC8555] with a Label "ip" and Reference to this draft.
>
> > (4) Section 8.2 - I think the intent of this IANA action is to have "ip" be an
> Identifier Type for the Labels "http-01" and "tls-alpn-01" in "ACME Validation
> Methods" registry.  This text isn't clear to me on execution - is text proposing
> (option #1) to modifying the existing entry in the registry (my read of the
> text, but two identifier types doesn't seem to be supported in the RFC8555
> text), or (option #2) add another registry entry?  Is it:
> >
> > (option #1) http-01, dns and ip
> >
> > OR
> >
> > (option #2) http-01, dns
> > http-01, ip
>
> > Regards,
> > Roman
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Acme mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme