Hi Sven, It could wait until you have other updates to make. Unless you'd like an earlier review, the next time we'll see it will be at IETF Last Call or the next time it's on a WG agenda at an IETF meeting, whichever comes first.
thanks, Amanda On Thu Nov 27 01:16:06 2025, [email protected] wrote: > Ganesh and I agree that section 7.4 should be removed. Should we cut > another draft to update? > > > Sven Rajala > > International PKI Man of Mystery > > > > M: +1 540 687 0761 > > [email protected]<https://www.keyfactor.com/> > > > > From: Sven A Rajala <[email protected]> > Date: Sunday, 2025 November 2 at 17:40 > To: Mike Ounsworth <[email protected]>, [email protected] > <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] <draft-acme-device- > [email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Acme] Re: [IANA #1435580] Early review: draft-acme- > device-attest-07 (IETF 124) > > Thanks for reviewing Amanda. We should make some updates to publish an > updated draft with the feedback from IANA. I will get in touch with > Ganesh and we will work on this. > > Kindly, > > > Sven Rajala > > International PKI Man of Mystery > > > > M: +1 540 687 0761 > > [email protected]<https://www.keyfactor.com/> > > > > From: Mike Ounsworth <[email protected]> > Date: Monday, 2025 November 3 at 06:14 > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] <draft-acme-device- > [email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: [Acme] Re: [IANA #1435580] Early review: draft-acme-device- > attest-07 (IETF 124) > > This Message Is From an External Sender > This message came from outside your organization. > Report Suspicious<https://us-phishalarm- > ewt.proofpoint.com/EWT/v1/BjbSd3t9V7AnTp3tuV- > 82YaK!_uQhDA8nmlmoNGcykNqTnyDv7eX8sDoXQ2f96qh2_IcHZpcbzJUB5LD5wjNj0CY- > YGm0GSy1GtFOispbWcq5OwwwoR92RBDtGdRMOWilhxQ2jJBgkkb7jwE9B5cYptWu$> > > Thank you Amanda! > > @Authors, please consider this feedback from IANA to be WGLC feedback. > > On Thu, 30 Oct 2025 at 18:55, Amanda Baber via RT <iana- > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Dear Authors (cc: acme WG), > > Before the IETF meeting, we check working group agendas for documents > with IANA-related issues. We have notes about this document: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-acme-device-attest- > 07<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft- > acme-device-attest-07__;!!BjbSd3t9V7AnTp3tuV- > 82YaK!y2Nwh_jGrkAz2Y_6bcqIESjlRfpE3ihUJXHY8AHMoCuZDIDuNKIbBqQ7R3I- > xQeAhZWOOERpIFUBPEga7LsDr8mqsGGBAA$> > > Section 7.1: > > The title of Section 7.1 refers to Identifier Types, but the text of > the section asks for Validation Methods. (The latter seems to be an > error, as Section 7.2 consistently refers to Validation Methods.) > > Section 7.2: > > The ACME Validation Methods registry also has a field called “ACME”: > https://www.iana.org/assignments/acme<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.iana.org/assignments/acme__;!!BjbSd3t9V7AnTp3tuV- > 82YaK!y2Nwh_jGrkAz2Y_6bcqIESjlRfpE3ihUJXHY8AHMoCuZDIDuNKIbBqQ7R3I- > xQeAhZWOOERpIFUBPEga7LsDr8kOFDprJw$> > > Section 7.4: > > 1) The last sentence of Section 7.4 refers to “the registry > established by [RFC8809],” but that document actually established two > registries in the WebAuthn group. > > 2) It's possible that the IESG will question the statement in Section > 7.4 that "Any additional processes established by the expert(s) after > the publication of this document will be recorded on the registry web > page at the discretion of the expert(s)." It might be appropriate to > describe the type of process that's meant here (e.g., additions to the > registration request submission methods described later in the > section. Can the expert change details specified by the RFC?). > > 3) Section 7.4.1.1 establishes a URL for a new registry group, but it > should also supply the name. Is it the name of the new registry, or > should it use a broader name, like “Web Authentication (WebAuthn) for > Certificate Request Protocols”? > > If you have any questions, just let us know. If you'd like to talk in > person, you can find us next to the RFC Editor's table from Monday > through Thursday. You can also request another review at any time by > contacting us at [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. > > For more information about IANA Considerations section requirements, > please see > > https://www.iana.org/help/protocol- > registration<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.iana.org/help/protocol- > registration__;!!BjbSd3t9V7AnTp3tuV- > 82YaK!y2Nwh_jGrkAz2Y_6bcqIESjlRfpE3ihUJXHY8AHMoCuZDIDuNKIbBqQ7R3I- > xQeAhZWOOERpIFUBPEga7LsDr8n3IPmsrA$> > > Best regards, > > Amanda Baber > IANA > > _______________________________________________ > Acme mailing list -- [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]<mailto:acme- > [email protected]> _______________________________________________ Acme mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
