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 <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Adam Roach via Datatracker Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 9:29 PM To: The IESG <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] 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 [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Ace mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
