2 AM
> *To:* consulta...@vanderstok.org; Carsten Bormann
> *Cc:* ace-cha...@ietf.org; Jim Schaad ; Benjamin
> Kaduk ; Ace Wg ; The IESG ;
> draft-ietf-ace-coap-...@ietf.org; Klaus Hartke
> *Subject:* Re: [Ace] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-ace-coap-est-17:
> (with DI
On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 06:16:34PM +0100, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On Dec 20, 2019, at 17:34, Klaus Hartke wrote:
> >
> > I would prefer if draft-ietf-ace-coap-est didn't say anything here,
> > since the Uri-Host and Uri-Port options and whether they should be
> > omitted or not is entirely
on draft-ietf-ace-coap-est-17:
(with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Hi Peter,
On Mon, Dec 23, 2019, at 9:12 AM, Peter van der Stok wrote:
HI all,
We had this discussion about this specific text several times.
I like to keep at least some text for the following reason:
Implementers, new to coap
Hi Peter,
On Mon, Dec 23, 2019, at 9:12 AM, Peter van der Stok wrote:
> HI all,
>
> We had this discussion about this specific text several times.
> I like to keep at least some text for the following reason:
> Implementers, new to coap without a photographic memory of RFC7252 text, are
>
HI all,
We had this discussion about this specific text several times.
I like to keep at least some text for the following reason:
Implementers, new to coap without a photographic memory of RFC7252 text,
are surprised by the absence of uri host in the examples, and tend to
assume an error.
The
Datatracker
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2019 8:27 AM
To: The IESG
Cc: draft-ietf-ace-coap-...@ietf.org; i...@augustcellars.com;
ace-cha...@ietf.org; ace@ietf.org
Subject: [Ace] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-ace-coap-est-17:
(with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Alexey Melnikov has entered
On Dec 20, 2019, at 17:34, Klaus Hartke wrote:
>
> I would prefer if draft-ietf-ace-coap-est didn't say anything here,
> since the Uri-Host and Uri-Port options and whether they should be
> omitted or not is entirely specified by CoAP [RFC7252].*
Klaus has an important point here.
We need to
Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> I am tempted to suggest that the text should be change to "SHOULD include
> Uri-Host and Uri-Port". Basically, if an implementation knows for sure that
> it is not needed, the SHOULD can be violated, but the recommended default is
> safe for all cases.
I would prefer
Hi Ben,
On Fri, Dec 20, 2019, at 12:47 AM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 05:27:06AM -0800, Alexey Melnikov via Datatracker
> wrote:
> > DISCUSS:
> >
> > 5.4. Message Bindings
> >
> >o The CoAP Options used are Uri-Host, Uri-Path, Uri-Port, Content-
> > Format,
On Dec 20, 2019, at 01:47, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>
>> The statement above
>>
>> When omitted, they are logically
>> assumed to be the transport protocol destination address and port
>> respectively. Explicit Uri-Host and Uri-Port Options are
>> typically used when an
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 05:27:06AM -0800, Alexey Melnikov via Datatracker wrote:
> Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-ace-coap-est-17: Discuss
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and
Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ace-coap-est-17: Discuss
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
