Hi keyinfra authors,
Glad to see that so much progress has been made since the last version.
I had problems with understanding some pieces of text. See below.
In the terminology section, the “Join proxy” is introduced. The term is
almost never used but the term “circuit proxy” is used. However, in
section 4 it is mentioned that join proxy can be a circuit proxy or an
IP-in-IP proxy. Therefore, I think that circuit proxy should be replaced
by Join proxy, at least in the figures and the accompanying text.
In section 1.3, the text from “The bootstrapping process…. such
techniques when defined” is confusing in my opinion. It makes the
purpose of the draft ambiguous. I recommend removing that text and
replacing it with shorter text, like:
“Possible constrained devices are the Join Proxy and the Pledge. Draft
vanderstok-ace-est-coaps specifies how TLS/HTTP is replaced by
DTLS/CoAP. Draft Richardson-anima-state-router discusses different join
proxy implementations”.
The above text allows removal of last 2 paragraph of section 4 before
section 4.1; and removal of section 4.2.
First paragraph of section 5 is difficult to parse. What is
configuration in this context?
End of section 5.1, what is “security paranoia”?
Section 5.2
Do the two media types refer to two different requests? Why and which
ones?
Section 5.4
Only one request media type? Why?
Voucher signature consistency, why not refer to 6402 instead of 7030?
Section 5.5 2nd paragraph
"If the join operation is successful", s/join operation/voucher request/
Section 5.6, paragraph 4
“The client HTTP POSTs the following…” is the client the pledge? What is
the following?
End of section 5.6 what is Specification Required?
Hope this helps,
Peter
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
