Thank you Reese for the review and comments.
I created individual github issues for these comments and all other review
comments of acme-subdomains at https://github.com/upros/acme-subdomains/issues
I have committed fixes and closed all bar one of the issues raised below. I
will comment on that one inline below.
Regards,
Owen
-----Original Message-----
From: Reese Enghardt via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday 17 November 2022 01:24
To: gen-...@ietf.org
Cc: acme@ietf.org; draft-ietf-acme-subdomains....@ietf.org; last-c...@ietf.org
Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-acme-subdomains-04
Reviewer: Reese Enghardt
Review result: Ready with Nits
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team
(Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF
Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments.
Section 2:
" Fully-Qualified Domain Name (FQDN): This is often just a clear way
of saying the same thing as "domain name of a node", as outlined
above. However, the term is ambiguous."
These two sentences appear to contradict each other - Is the term clear or
ambiguous? I suggest removing the word "clear" to simply state how the term is
commonly used, and then point out the ambiguity.
[ofriel] The section starts with stating:
" The following terms are defined in DNS Terminology [RFC8499] and are
reproduced here"
The definition is an exact quote from RFC8499. Do we need to get the definition
in RFC8499 updated? I am unsure if I should change the definition of FQDN in
this ACME document and would prefer to change the definition in the common
source of these DNS terms. What does IESG recommend?
_______________________________________________
Acme mailing list
Acme@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
