Hi Alexey,


Overall, this seems to be workable and useful.


* In Sec. 3, definition of the format of the email address should refer to RFC 5322 (specifically, Sec. 3.4.1) and not 5321.

* I've never seen "*" used to denote wildcards in the context of email addresses, is this really a problem? "*" is nominally a legal character in the local-part of an address.
* Is the email address allowed to contain a "+", which typically introduces a subaddress (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_address#Subaddressing)? In other words, do I need a different certificate for every subaddress? RFC 5750 is silent on this.

* Token2 is "returned over HTTPS". Is it part of the ACME protocol? Where exactly?

* I think we should say explicitly that both tokens are generated freshly for each Order.

* Why include the SHA-256 digest of the key authz in the returned email, rather than the key authz as-is? Please refer to Sec. 8.1 of the base draft: key authz is token+"."+thumbprint.
* Can all mail clients generate emails that contain a single text/plain MIME part? In other words, are there no browser-based clients that insist on having an "alternative" HTML part? The CA should be liberal enough to deal with their responses.
* "These identifiers may appear in any sort order" - could you include an example of the CSR? I could not find an RFC that defines it for S/MIME.
* 3.1: the subject header is often prepended with all sorts of fluff, such as "[extern]". I don't know if people also append things to the header, but if they do, you might want to facilitate parsing by surrounding the token with some special characters, e.g. "ACME: [1234abcd]" (note the brackets).
* Please specify that this is base64url without "=" padding.
* ‎The example response shows a key authorization (digest+thumbprint), and not a sha-256 digest of a key authz which the text says.
* Also, I suggest to add some boilerplate to the response to make it easier to parse, e.g. prepend with "ACME:" similarly to the request subject header.
* Open issue 1: yes, I think a special MIME type is much better than having a client plug-in that needs to inspect ALL incoming emails.

* IANA Considerations: clarify which registries for each one.


Thanks,

    Yaron

_______________________________________________
Acme mailing list
Acme@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme

Reply via email to