On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 03:10:55PM -0700, Adam Roach via Datatracker wrote: > Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-security-13: Discuss > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-security/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thanks to everyone who invested their time in this document. I have one > blocking comment that I believe should be easy to resolve, and one fairly > major > comment that should be trivial to fix. > > §8.1.1: > > > o The Uri-Path option is set to "j". > > COAP URIs are generally subject to BCP 190 restrictions, which would require > the path to either be provisioned, discovered, or under the ".well-known" > tree. The use of a reserved domain name here may change the rationale; but for > the sake of not establishing a precedent for path squatting in CoAP, this > document needs to clearly explain the rationale of why BCP 190 should not > apply in this case. Alternately, the implied URI can be changed to something > like "coap://6tisch.arpa/.well-known/j"
Note also the parameter update exchange describe in Section 8.2, where the joined node is supposed to act as a CoAp server and expose the "/j" resource. The justification of the reserved domain name does not seem to apply to that case, which seems to suggest that .well-known will be needed. -Ben _______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
