[CDNi] Review of draft-ietf-cdni-delegation-acme-00

[Thomas Fossati <[e-mail]>]

Hi Fred, Sanjay and Emile,

I have reviewed the latest draft and it looks good to me.

There are a few comments & suggestions below.

Cheers, t

-=-=-=-=-=-

## abstract

* why plural "metadata objects"?  Suggestion:

OLD

Specifically, this document defines CDNI Metadata interface objects
to enable delegation of X.509 certificates leveraging delegation
schemes defined in RFC9115.

NEW

Specifically, this document defines a CDNI Metadata interface object
to enable delegation of X.509 certificates leveraging delegation
schemes defined in RFC9115.


## §1

* expand FCI on first use:

 Section 2 presents delegation metadata for the FCI interface.


## §3

* typo (extra “to”)

  When a uCDN delegates to a dCDN to deliver HTTPS traffic using DNS
  Redirection [RFC7975],

  When a uCDN delegates a dCDN to delivery of HTTPS traffic using DNS
  Redirection [RFC7975],


* typo (missing parentheses):

OLD

   The ACMEDelegationMethod applies to both ACME STAR delegation, which
   provides a delegation model based on short-term certificates with
   automatic renewal Section 2.3.2 of [RFC9115], and non-STAR
   delegation, which allows delegation between CDNs using long-term
   certificates Section 2.3.3 of [RFC9115].

NEW

   The ACMEDelegationMethod applies to both ACME STAR delegation, which
   provides a delegation model based on short-term certificates with
   automatic renewal (Section 2.3.2 of [RFC9115]), and non-STAR
   delegation, which allows delegation between CDNs using long-term
   certificates (Section 2.3.3 of [RFC9115]).

## §3.1

* this seems to suggest that the consumer can tell STAR and non-STAR
  based on "delegation certificate validity", but it's not clear to me
  what that means.

   The ACMEDelegationMethod object allows a uCDN to both define STAR and
   non-STAR delegation depending on the delegation certificate validity.

  From the following examples (§3.1.1) I gather there's an implicit way
  to distinguish based on the presence/absence of the lifetime*
  properties.  Is that what was intended?  If so, it should be clarified.


IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.