Early Review of draft-ietf-acme-onion-02
review-ietf-acme-onion-02-secdir-early-piper-2024-08-23-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-acme-onion
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Early Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2024-08-30
Requested 2024-08-17
Requested by Deb Cooley
Authors Q Misell
I-D last updated 2024-08-23
Completed reviews Dnsdir Early review of -02 by Peter van Dijk (diff)
Opsdir Early review of -02 by Qin Wu (diff)
Secdir Early review of -02 by Derrell Piper (diff)
Dnsdir Last Call review of -04 by Peter van Dijk (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -04 by Dale R. Worley (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Derrell Piper (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -05 by Derrell Piper (diff)
Dnsdir Telechat review of -05 by Matt Brown (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -05 by Qin Wu (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Derrell Piper
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-acme-onion by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/aIg0sD97b1a-NfFbC4kxMm_l2-I
Reviewed revision 02 (document currently at 07)
Result Has nits
Completed 2024-08-23
review-ietf-acme-onion-02-secdir-early-piper-2024-08-23-00
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area
directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

The summary of the review is: HAS NITS

RE: ACME over hidden services

This changes a "SHOULD strongly consider making their ACME server available as
a Tor hidden services" to "is RECOMMENDED to make...", which is even worse.

Whereas what I think it should say is "SHOULD make their ACME server available
as a Tor hidden service".

Derrell