Last Call Review of draft-ietf-acme-subdomains-04
review-ietf-acme-subdomains-04-genart-lc-enghardt-2022-11-16-00

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

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

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"