I think this is a terminology fix. Let's address it in the next iteration.
-Original Message-
From: Ace [mailto:ace-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2018 5:08 AM
To: consulta...@vanderstok.org
Cc: ace@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ace] draft-ietf-ace
peter van der Stok wrote:
>> Let me delete "Join" from above sentence.
>>
>> A device that terminates the DTLS security (CoAPS) and then talks to the
CA
>> is a Registration Authority according to EST and RFC5280. It's not a
>> proxy.
>> (And it doesn't matter if it spea
018 6:11 AM
To: Michael Richardson
Cc: ace@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ace] draft-ietf-ace-coap-est-00
Michael Richardson schreef op 2018-03-15 09:00:
> peter van der Stok wrote:
> >> >> DTLS connection is going to be required to act as an RA. RAs
> >> are require
Michael Richardson schreef op 2018-03-15 09:00:
peter van der Stok wrote:
>> >> DTLS connection is going to be required to act as an RA. RAs
>> are required
>> >> to have the entire request for adding authentication as
necessary.
>>
>> > This is visible in the figure of
Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>> Jim Schaad wrote:
>> > In section 2 - There will be a problem in that the port format
extension is
>> > being eliminated in TLS 1.3 - We may want to divide this into a 1.2
and 1.3
>> > section for clarity.
>>
>> I don't understand what you are re
peter van der Stok wrote:
>> >> DTLS connection is going to be required to act as an RA. RAs
>> are required
>> >> to have the entire request for adding authentication as necessary.
>>
>> > This is visible in the figure of section 6, but needs elaboration in
>> the
>>
>> * Should probably add a note in section 6 that any proxy that
terminates
>> the
>> DTLS connection is going to be required to act as an RA. RAs
are required
>> to have the entire request for adding authentication as
necessary.
> This is visible in the figure of sectio
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 09:44:37PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> Jim Schaad wrote:
> > In section 2 - There will be a problem in that the port format
> extension is
> > being eliminated in TLS 1.3 - We may want to divide this into a 1.2 and
> 1.3
> > section for clarity.
>
>
Jim Schaad wrote:
> In section 2 - There will be a problem in that the port format extension
is
> being eliminated in TLS 1.3 - We may want to divide this into a 1.2 and
1.3
> section for clarity.
I don't understand what you are referring to.
What is the "port format extension" yo
peter van der Stok wrote:
>> * In section 6- All proxies are required by CoAP blocking to re-assemble
>> the entire message at the proxy. It can re-block things going to the
next
>> proxy. While there is no requirement that the proxy get the entire
message
>> before sending o
On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 09:08:05AM +0100, peter van der Stok wrote:
> Hi Jim,
>
> thanks for the comments. See my reactions below.
> Jim Schaad schreef op 2018-03-10 22:15:
> > I agree with Hannes, this version of the document is much cleaner and
> > much
> > clearer. I think that it has solved
Hi Jim,
thanks for the comments. See my reactions below.
Jim Schaad schreef op 2018-03-10 22:15:
I agree with Hannes, this version of the document is much cleaner and
much
clearer. I think that it has solved most of the problems that I
initially
had with the draft. It is not ready to progress
12 matches
Mail list logo
