I agree with Hannes, this version of the document is much cleaner and much clearer. I think that it has solved most of the problems that I initially had with the draft. It is not ready to progress as there are still sections that are marked as TODO. But it is much closer to finishing that it was.
I still have a couple of comments from a quick read through of the document. In section 2 - There will be a problem in that the port format extension is being eliminated in TLS 1.3 - We may want to divide this into a 1.2 and 1.3 section for clarity. In section 3- Should we be looking at the use of COSE rather than CMS for encryption of key services? * Do you have the option to additionally support the long name for the service as well as the short name? MUST have short name MAY have long name? * In section 6- All proxies are required by CoAP blocking to re-assemble the entire message at the proxy. It can re-block things going to the next proxy. While there is no requirement that the proxy get the entire message before sending on pieces, this should be common practice and would be required for a CoAP/HTTP proxy. * Should probably add a note in section 6 that any proxy that terminates the DTLS connection is going to be required to act as an RA. RAs are required to have the entire request for adding authentication as necessary. Jim _______________________________________________ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace