Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-emu-eap-edhoc-10: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-emu-eap-edhoc/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for the work done in this document (I liked the use of SVG graphics, except for figure 7 though :-( ). Nevertheless, section 3.1.4 contains `an anonymous NAI SHOULD be derived from the NAI in the certificate` without any guidance required by https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-statement-on-clarifying-the-use-of-bcp-14-key-words/ Same issue in section 3.5 `However, EDHOC error messages SHOULD be considered failure result indication,` Section 4.1, s/indicates the length/indicates the length *in octets*/ Section 5: suggest adding the URL of the IANA registries as informative references. _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
