From: Cigdem Sengul
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2019 4:21 AM
To: Jim Schaad
Cc: draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-prof...@ietf.org; ace@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ace] Comments on draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile
Thank you, Jim, for the comments.
I have created issues corresponding to each one in the
Thank you, Jim, for the comments.
I have created issues corresponding to each one in the GitHub repository.
We will start working on them, and specifically clarify the issues 1-3
around the CONNECT message.
For 4, MQTT v5 can support a challenge-response; not possible with v3
indeed. Will expand
Hello Ludwig,
This was MQTT-SN-over-DTLS was on our agenda when first we started out.
However, at that time there was not much take-up of MQTT-SN in practice
(not sure that changed). If there is sufficient interest in the group,
would make sense to do that as well, and theoretically, it would be
On 22/05/2019 23:58, Jim Schaad wrote:
5. Is there an intention to provide a "standard" format for the scope field
or just to leave it as ad hoc?
I would be very much in favor of this, or at least provide guidelines to
avoid adding to this: https://www.brandur.org/oauth-scope
/Ludwig
On 21/05/2019 22:35, Cigdem Sengul wrote:
Thank you for your comments. I see that we tried to cover too many
options in the draft, and things got mixed up.I tried to clarify inline.
* So as a client I get a token from the AS. For the first run,
assume that
it has a RPK in it.
