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
&
> -Original Message-
> From: Francesca Palombini
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 6:26 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,
>
>
Hi Jim,
Inline.
Thanks,
Francesca
On 31/01/2019, 01:34, "Jim Schaad" wrote:
1. Please update the text for MUST/SHOULD/MAY to include the language from
RFC 8174.
FP: Right, thanks. Updated now in the github.
2. Section 3.2.1 - What to do is clear if a field is not
1. Please update the text for MUST/SHOULD/MAY to include the language from
RFC 8174.
2. Section 3.2.1 - What to do is clear if a field is not missing. What is
the correct behavior if a field is present that the client and/or resource
server does not recognize. Is this a fatal error or is it
