Daniel Migault <[email protected]> Thu, 21 January 2021 13:13 UTC
Hi,
The charter approval by the IESG is expected to be approved in the
coming weeks. In the meanwhile, this email starts a call for adoption
on work that has been included in the charter. Of course, adoption is
contingent on the rechartering succeeding.
The document called for adoption is draft-marin-ace-wg-coap-eap
available here:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-marin-ace-wg-coap-eap-07
Please state your opinion on whether this work should not or should
be adopted by the WG and express your motivation for such a
statement. The call for adoption closes on February 4.
Yours, Daniel
-- Daniel Migault Ericsson
Hi,
This is my first post to this list.
We agreed internally that we at CEA support the adoption of this draft.
We have a few comments:
· §3 “two different sequence _flow_” (typo: ‘s’ missing);
· §3 “_should_ be valid”: I do not like the feeling of
uncertainty given by this lowercase ‘should’. What would be the
restraints to this statement? Which key-deriving methods would not be
acceptable?
· Page 5 “_on the contrary_, if DTLS”. I would replace « on
the contrary » with “on the other hand” or “alternatively”… DTLS is
not the opposite of OSCORE ;)
· PANA RFC is referenced but not quoted. I have to admit that
my knowledge of IETF edition rules is now almost inexistent, so maybe
it is acceptable to reference background RFCs that one does not
actually quote in the text;
· You could find worthwhile to quote RFC6677, which seems (I
may be wrong) relevant to the topic you address.
Yours,
Alexandre PETRESCU
_______________________________________________
Ace mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
