Couple of minor comments: - It might be useful to specify validation methods even without ACME. The CAB Forum is working on whittling down the space of available mechanisms to an enumerated list, and while these might not completely overlap with ACME methods, it will be a small enough list to enumerate in a registry. I think the only impacts to this spec would be (1) to change from "acme-methods" to "validation-methods" and (2) to remove the "non-acme" value.
- With regard to Section 5.1, it might be useful to note that as of Sept 2017, all Web PKI CAs will be required to check CAA; see 3.2.2.8 in https://github.com/cabforum/documents/blob/master/docs/BR.md - Using "CA A" as an example is kind of confusing :) Maybe "CA X" and "CA Y"? On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Salz, Rich <rs...@akamai.com> wrote: > >> Hugo's CAA draft (already adopted, short, might be > > >> ready for WGLC) -- https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-acme-caa-01 > > > > This has moved to WGLC. If you know of any reason why it should not > advance to the IESG, please post by end of next week. > > > > If you are willing to be the document shepherd for this document (see > https://www.ietf.org/iesg/template/doc-writeup.html; an essay style > writeup is fine), please let the chairs know soon. > > > > -- > > Senior Architect, Akamai Technologies > > Member, OpenSSL Dev Team > > IM: richs...@jabber.at Twitter: RichSalz > > > > _______________________________________________ > Acme mailing list > Acme@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme > >
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
