Re: [Ace] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-ace-coap-est-17: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Panos Kampanakis (pkampana)]

Hi Adam,

Thank you for the feedback. For completeness, we are tracking it in a git issue 
https://github.com/SanKumar2015/EST-coaps/issues/156 

Good point about updating the Well-Known URIs to include [This RFC] 
additionally to RFC7030. We will make sure we add this in the IANA 
considerations.

We will also address the other three nits as well. 

Rgs,
Panos


-Original Message-
From: Ace  On Behalf Of Adam Roach via Datatracker
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 9:29 PM
To: The IESG 
Cc: draft-ietf-ace-coap-...@ietf.org; i...@augustcellars.com; 
ace-cha...@ietf.org; ace@ietf.org
Subject: [Ace] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-ace-coap-est-17: (with 
DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Adam Roach 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 https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ace-coap-est/



--
DISCUSS:
--


Thanks for the work that the authors and working group put into this document.
I have one DISCUSS-level comment that should be very easy to resolve, and a 
small number of editorial nits.

---

§9:

Since this specification is adding new endpoints under /.well-known/est, it 
needs to update the "Well-Known URIs" registry so that the entry for "est" 
indicates this document (in addition to RFC 7030).


--
COMMENT:
--


§5.3:

>  The Content-Format (HTTP Media-Type equivalent) of the CoAP message

HTTP doesn't have a "Media-Type" field. Presumably this intends to say 
"Content-Type"?

---

§5.3:

>  Media-Types specified in the HTTP Content-Type header (Section 3.2.2

Nit "...header field..."

---

§5.5:

>  HTTP response code 202 with a Retry-After header in [RFC7030] has no

Nit "...header field..."


___
Ace mailing list
Ace@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Ace mailing list
Ace@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace

[Ace] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-ace-coap-est-17: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Adam Roach via Datatracker]

Adam Roach 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 https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ace-coap-est/



--
DISCUSS:
--


Thanks for the work that the authors and working group put into this document.
I have one DISCUSS-level comment that should be very easy to resolve, and
a small number of editorial nits.

---

§9:

Since this specification is adding new endpoints under /.well-known/est,
it needs to update the "Well-Known URIs" registry so that the entry for
"est" indicates this document (in addition to RFC 7030).


--
COMMENT:
--


§5.3:

>  The Content-Format (HTTP Media-Type equivalent) of the CoAP message

HTTP doesn't have a "Media-Type" field. Presumably this intends to
say "Content-Type"?

---

§5.3:

>  Media-Types specified in the HTTP Content-Type header (Section 3.2.2

Nit "...header field..."

---

§5.5:

>  HTTP response code 202 with a Retry-After header in [RFC7030] has no

Nit "...header field..."


___
Ace mailing list
Ace@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace