Linda, thanks for your review. One comment below. > On Sep 20, 2019, at 6:45 PM, Linda Dunbar via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Linda Dunbar > 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. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-acme-tls-alpn-06 > Reviewer: Linda Dunbar > Review Date: 2019-09-20 > IETF LC End Date: 2019-09-25 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: > This document specifies a new "challenges" for Automated Certificate Management > Environment > > Major issues: > > Minor issues: > > Nits/editorial comments: > The 3rd paragraph of the Introduction stated that this New Challenges requires > negotiating a new application layer protocol, but no existing software > implements this protocol. Therefore the ability to fulfill this challenges is > effectively "opt-in". I find the statement is quite confusing. Does it mean > that it is necessary to manually add processing to handle the challenge because > there is no implementation of auto negotiation? I think the point of this text is just to explain why the validation model was designed as it was — because it need not accommodate any existing deployed base. I entered a No Objection ballot. Alissa > > Thanks, > Linda Dunbar > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
