Hi Ben, On 13/01/2021 23:04, Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker wrote:
Thanks for the updates to get to the -13; they look really good.The new text did inspire one further comment, though I don't see a particular text change that might result, plus I spotted a few editorial nits. Section 1 1. A Mail User Agent (MUA) which has built in ACME client aware of the extension described in this document. (We will call such ACME clients "ACME-email-aware") Such MUA can present nice User Interface to the user and automate certificate issuance. (nit?) In the parenthetical, are we calling the ACME clients or the MUA "ACME-email-aware"? Also, full stop for the end of the sentence. Section 3 (nit?) In step 8, the MUST-level requirement in the last sentence probably promotes it into not being a parenthetical. Section 3.1 If S/MIME signing is used, the certificate corresponding to the signer MUST have rfc822Name subjectAltName extension with the value equal to the From header field email address of the "challenge" email. A strict equality requirement might make it operationally challenging to use a unique "from" challenge for each request. I don't see any feasible alternative, though, as getting into + suffixes in the local part seems like a non-starter for this document.
I am afraid so.
Also, nit: s/subjectAltName extension/a subjectAltName extension/
Applied all of the above. Thanks. Best Regards, Alexey _______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
