Looks fine.
Jim
> -Original Message-
> From: Francesca Palombini
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2019 4:55 AM
> To: Jim Schaad ; draft-ietf-ace-oscore-
> prof...@ietf.org
> Cc: ace@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Shepard comments on draft-ietf-ace-oscore-profile
>
> Hi Jim,
>
> Here is the
Hi Jim,
About
> 4. The query in section 5.1 to a resource directory is not correct. It
> would not go to /.well-known/core but to /rd-lookup (or what ever name is
> used by the RD). If this is not intended to be an RD query, then the
> sentence about it above can be omitted.
> 5.
Hi Valery,
On 2019-02-18, 08:07, "Valery Smyslov" wrote:
Hi,
> Richard Barnes wrote:
> > Finally, to be totally honest, I find the EDHOC spec pretty
inscrutable. A
> > little more prose to explain what's going on would go a long way
toward
> > helping
Hi Michael,
On 2019-02-18, 02:35, "Ace on behalf of Michael Richardson"
wrote:
Richard Barnes wrote:
> Finally, to be totally honest, I find the EDHOC spec pretty
inscrutable. A
> little more prose to explain what's going on would go a long way
toward
> helping
Hi Richard,
From: Richard Barnes
Date: Friday, 15 February 2019 at 17:19
To: Göran Selander
Cc: "secdispa...@ietf.org" , "ace@ietf.org"
Subject: Re: [Secdispatch] FW: [secdir] EDHOC and Transports
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:13 AM Göran Selander
mailto:goran.selan...@ericsson.com>> wrote:
Hi
> On Feb 18, 2019, at 15:59, Sebastian Echeverria
> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I have a short comment about error responses from an RS in
> draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz-21. More specifically, my question is about
> section 5.8.2. In the second paragraph, it states “The response code MUST be
>
Hello,
I have a short comment about error responses from an RS in
draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz-21. More specifically, my question is about section
5.8.2. In the second paragraph, it states “The response code MUST be 4.01
(Unauthorized) in case the client has not performed the
Hi Jim,
thanks for the review.
see below.
Peter
Jim Schaad schreef op 2019-02-16 20:55:
> 1. In section 10.1 the last sentence of the first paragraph and the first
> sentence of the last paragraph duplicate each other. This should be cleaned
> up.
>
> removed the 2nd instance
>
> 2.
Hi Rene,
These are interesting ideas. As you say, EDHOC is currently optimized for a
minimum number of messages and bytes. Spreading out the bytes and computations
could be beneficial in some applications. EDHOC is currently based on SIGMA-I.
The four-message variant would be based on SIGMA-R
