Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-acme-subdomains-04

Request Review of draft-ietf-acme-subdomains
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2022-11-21
Requested 2022-10-31
Authors Owen Friel , Richard Barnes , Tim Hollebeek , Michael Richardson
I-D last updated 2022-11-16
Completed reviews Artart Last Call review of -04 by Carsten Bormann (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -04 by Reese Enghardt (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -04 by Bo Wu (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Reese Enghardt
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-acme-subdomains by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 04 (document currently at 07)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2022-11-16
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at


Document: draft-ietf-acme-subdomains-04
Reviewer: Reese Enghardt
Review Date: 2022-11-16
IETF LC End Date: 2022-11-21
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: The document is well-written, clear, and to the point. I only found a
few nits with opportunities for clarification.

Major issues: None.

Minor issues:

Section 2:

" Fully-Qualified Domain Name (FQDN): This is often just a clear way
          of saying the same thing as "domain name of a node", as outlined
          above.  However, the term is ambiguous."

These two sentences appear to contradict each other - Is the term clear or
ambiguous? I suggest removing the word "clear" to simply state how the term is
commonly used, and then point out the ambiguity.

Section 3:

"6. server replies with an updated order object […]"

Is this updated order object similar to the "authorization" objects?
When it says "authorizations" in step 2, are these also objects?
I suggest defining the term "object", e.g., in Section 2, and then
double-checking that this term is applied consistency in the document.

Nits/editorial comments:

Section 4.3:

"If the client is unable to fulfill authorizations against parent domain"
-> "If the client is unable to fulfill authorizations against a parent domain"