From: Francesca Palombini
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 2:29 AM
To: Jim Schaad ; ace@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-osc...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-oscore
Hi Jim,
Thanks again for your in depth review. We have identified 7 clear APs from some
of
Comments on this draft.
1. I have an existential problem with this document. This is a standards
track document that is claiming to do an update to an experimental draft.
However, this is something that I would not expect to be done and it is not
clear just what the updates to that document are
Hi Esko,
Changing subject line to address your new review comments first. I will address
your response to your previous review in the other thread.
Thanks again for finding these nits and for your suggestions.
> -> I wonder why the client would trust a new Explicit TA, if the EST server
>
Hello,
Thanks for the update! First, regarding the changes:
*
mapping of HTTP response codes to CoAP response codes. The success
code in response to an EST-coaps GET request (/cacerts, /csrattrs),
is 2.05. Similarly, 2.01 is used in response to EST-coaps POST
requests
Hi Jim,
Thanks again for your in depth review. We have identified 7 clear APs from some
of your review comments, and we hope that we answer the other (inline). Please
let us know if that is ok, and we will update the document as soon as possible.
Thanks,
Francesca and Marco
I was wandering
