Hi everyone, Thank you very much for the review. We agree with your comments, and all of them have been addressed in the following commit: https://github.com/dangarciacarrillo/i-d-eap-edhoc/commit/c78f95b Additionally, Figure 7 now uses SVG as well! :) Best regards, The EAP-EDHOC Authors.
Francisco López Gómez Predoctoral Researcher Dept. Ingeniería de la Información y las Comunicaciones [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [logo UMU]<https://www.um.es> [logo euniwell]<https://www.euniwell.eu/> [logo hr]<https://www.um.es/web/hrs4r> [logo CMN]<https://www.campusmarenostrum.es/> ________________________________ De: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email protected]> Enviado: martes, 2 de junio de 2026 18:30 Para: The IESG <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Asunto: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-emu-eap-edhoc-10: (with COMMENT) 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!SHR7yT3UoLvcIIi7EYSmm9rQs4NzxBLhdLk-4CglRaL2MT2nc6yE1e3X7F4vRkTARUoWyj1quqJ5HsBmUqAv$ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-emu-eap-edhoc/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!SHR7yT3UoLvcIIi7EYSmm9rQs4NzxBLhdLk-4CglRaL2MT2nc6yE1e3X7F4vRkTARUoWyj1quqJ5HuM-WgDv$ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-statement-on-clarifying-the-use-of-bcp-14-key-words/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!SHR7yT3UoLvcIIi7EYSmm9rQs4NzxBLhdLk-4CglRaL2MT2nc6yE1e3X7F4vRkTARUoWyj1quqJ5HvoxWWZ6$ 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]
