Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-acme-authority-token-07: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-acme-authority-token/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for the work on this document. I support Ben's DISCUSS, in particular the inconsistencies between definition and examples for the "atc" claim (array vs object, "ca" defined as 4th optional field in an array), and his thoughtful COMMENTs, I found myself having the same questions about some of them, so will be looking out for your answers to those as well. Additionally, I would suggest to add a Description column to the IANA ACME Authority Token Challenge Type Registry, containing some short description of what the types defined are. Francesca _______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
