Hi Daniel, Thanks for pushing this document forward.
On 2022-09-16, Daniel Migault <[email protected]> wrote: > There two nits to address before the draft can be moved forward . > > ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC9202]), which it > shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the > documents in question. Okay, I will fix this. > ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6347 (Obsoleted by RFC 9147) The full text reads: [RFC9202] only specifies the use of DTLS [RFC6347] [RFC9147] but works equally well for TLS [RFC8446]. The reference to DTLS version 1.2 is explicitly included because RFC 9202 specifies the use of DTLS version 1.2 (and mentions that DTLS version 1.3 can be used instead). I am happy to delete the reference to DTLS 1.2 but I am wondering if this could lead to confusion? Grüße Olaf _______________________________________________ Ace mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
