Re: [6tisch] On minimal-security

On Thu, 24 May 2018 at 20:44, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Mališa Vučinić wrote: > > @Michael, @Christian > > > I am re-reading RFC7252, Section 5.7.2: > > okay, but I'm not claiming that the Join Proxy is a CoAP Proxy by the rules > given in

Re: [6tisch] On minimal-security

Mališa Vučinić wrote: > @Michael, @Christian > I am re-reading RFC7252, Section 5.7.2: okay, but I'm not claiming that the Join Proxy is a CoAP Proxy by the rules given in 7252. It started as just a circuit proxy (i.e. algorithm gateway), but we wanted it to be

Re: [6tisch] On minimal-security

@Michael, @Christian I am re-reading RFC7252, Section 5.7.2: Unless a proxy is configured to forward the proxy request to another proxy, > it MUST translate the request as follows: the scheme of the request URI > defines the outgoing protocol and its details (e.g., CoAP is used over UDP > for

Re: [6tisch] On minimal-security

Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: > I understood so far sar the CoAP URI host is the same as the http host: > header parameter. If I m correct then this is normally a string with > the dns name and port to reach the server. Without it, the proxy > wouldn’t know

Re: [6tisch] On minimal-security

Mališa Vučinić wrote: > I am not sure I follow. How come is it not the case that this well-known > host name is resolved to an IP address? We don't need to map this name to an IP address, nor could we have a consistent mapping world-wide. The IP address is known to

Re: [6tisch] On minimal-security

I’m lost as well; I understood so far sar the CoAP URI host is the same as the http host: header parameter. If I m correct then this is normally a string with the dns name and port to reach the server. Without it, the proxy wouldn’t know how to reach the server in the first place. Without it,

Re: [6tisch] On minimal-security

Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: >> I don't understand at all. Would a PCE provide enrollment services? pt> [PT>] We are talking to a stateless CoAP proxy, giving an alias to a pt> service that it will map into the IP address of the server, here the pt>

Re: [6tisch] On minimal-security

Hello Michael > -Original Message- > From: 6tisch <6tisch-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Michael Richardson > Sent: vendredi 18 mai 2018 17:10 > To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthub...@cisco.com> > Cc: 6tisch@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [6tisch] On minimal-s

Re: [6tisch] On minimal-security

Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: >>> Suggestion: "default-jrc.6tisch.arpa". >> >> Why make it longer? Note that it's already to a unique Path-URI (/j), so we >> can add new things if it's CoAP. > The point is that 6TiSCH.arpa doesn’t dénote what 6TISCH

Re: [6tisch] On minimal-security

we were told to use a form like “IEEE Std. 802.15.4” to > refer to the IEEE standards. Note that one should avoid dating the IEEE > spec references unless there is a quote or a pointer that is specific to a > particular year. > Removed date from th

Re: [6tisch] On minimal-security

Hello Michael: Regards, Pascal > Le 15 mai 2018 à 21:07, Michael Richardson a écrit : > > > Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: >pt> ·We should not say the following: > >txt> When the JRC is not co-located with the 6LBR, then the

Re: [6tisch] On minimal-security

Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: pt> ·We should not say the following: txt> When the JRC is not co-located with the 6LBR, then the code point txt> provides a clear indication to the 6LBR that this is join response txt> traffic. pt> This seems to

Re: [6tisch] On minimal-security

Thanks for this review, Pascal. I went quickly through your comments and I should be able to fix all of this for -06. My goal is to have -06 ready for WGLC. On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 4:00 PM Pascal Thubert (pthubert) < pthub...@cisco.com> wrote: > Hello Mališa > > > > As you are getting ready to

[6tisch] On minimal-security

Hello Mališa As you are getting ready to publish a next rev, please find simple comments on 05 that you may want to act upon in 06. ·As mentioned earlier in the draft, the most probable collocation for the JRC would be the 6LBR, and probably not a JP deep in the network. Why did you