Hi Panos, On Fri, Dec 27, 2019, at 5:20 AM, Panos Kampanakis (pkampana) wrote: > Hi Alexey,
> > This commit > https://github.com/SanKumar2015/EST-coaps/commit/77d65f0eb7a28282f363e5e48cd0d28970f9366e > should address your feedback. The full discussion is in > https://github.com/SanKumar2015/EST-coaps/issues/155 > > Let us know if it does not make sense. Yes, the changes look fine to me. I just cleared my DISCUSS. Best Regards, Alexey > Rgs, > Panos > > *From:* Ace <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Alexey Melnikov > *Sent:* Monday, December 23, 2019 9:42 AM > *To:* [email protected]; Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> > *Cc:* [email protected]; Jim Schaad <[email protected]>; Benjamin > Kaduk <[email protected]>; Ace Wg <[email protected]>; The IESG <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; Klaus Hartke <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [Ace] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-ace-coap-est-17: > (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > Hi Peter, > > On Mon, Dec 23, 2019, at 9:12 AM, Peter van der Stok wrote: >> HI all, >> >> We had this discussion about this specific text several times. >> I like to keep at least some text for the following reason: >> Implementers, new to coap without a photographic memory of RFC7252 text, are >> surprised by the absence of uri host in the examples, and tend to assume an >> error. >> >> The curent text does not look like a "normative rephrasing" to me. >> Nevertheless, is the suggestion below acceptable to everyone? >> >> OLD >> >> The Uri-Host and Uri-Port Options can be omitted if they coincide >> with the transport protocol destination address and port >> respectively. Explicit Uri-Host and Uri-Port Options are typically >> used when an endpoint hosts multiple virtual servers and uses the >> Options to route the requests accordingly. >> >> NEW >> Section 5.10.1 of RFC7252 specifies that the Uri-Host and Uri-Port Options >> can be omitted if they coincide >> with the transport protocol destination address and port >> respectively. >> >> Other suggestions are welcome. > Your suggested text is much better. > > Thank you, > Alexey >> Peter >> Carsten Bormann schreef op 2019-12-20 18:16: >>> On Dec 20, 2019, at 17:34, Klaus Hartke <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> I would prefer if draft-ietf-ace-coap-est didn't say anything here, >>>> since the Uri-Host and Uri-Port options and whether they should be >>>> omitted or not is entirely specified by CoAP [RFC7252].* >>> >>> Klaus has an important point here. >>> >>> We need to be **much more** vigilant about specifications messing with >>> their normative references. >>> Saying how they are used, yes, but re-stating (or, worse, re-interpreting) >>> normative material from those references is prone to creating dialects that >>> no longer interoperate with their unadulterated originals. Unless these are >>> hopelessly broken(*) and this is the only way to fix them, this is a MUST >>> NOT. >>> >>> Grüße, Carsten >>> >>> (*) the normative reference EST has an example for that case: The use of >>> content-transfer-encoding with HTTP, which is explicitly ruled out in >>> Section 19.4.5 of RFC 2616 (and now appendix A.5 of RFC 7231). That was a >>> count of RFC 7030 messing with a normative reference, and in turn >>> **needed** to be messed with in CoAP-EST (and eventually needs to be fixed >>> in the parent specification, too). > > > *Attachments:* > * smime.p7s
_______________________________________________ Ace mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
