Thank you Reese for the review and comments. I created individual github issues for these comments and all other review comments of acme-subdomains at https://github.com/upros/acme-subdomains/issues I have committed fixes and closed all bar one of the issues raised below. I will comment on that one inline below. Regards, Owen -----Original Message----- From: Reese Enghardt via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday 17 November 2022 01:24 To: gen-art@xxxxxxxx Cc: acme@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-acme-subdomains.all@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-acme-subdomains-04 Reviewer: Reese Enghardt Review result: Ready with Nits 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. 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. [ofriel] The section starts with stating: " The following terms are defined in DNS Terminology [RFC8499] and are reproduced here" The definition is an exact quote from RFC8499. Do we need to get the definition in RFC8499 updated? I am unsure if I should change the definition of FQDN in this ACME document and would prefer to change the definition in the common source of these DNS terms. What does IESG recommend? -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
