Re: [6tisch] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-security-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 03:10:55PM -0700, Adam Roach via Datatracker wrote:
> Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-security-13: 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-6tisch-minimal-security/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thanks to everyone who invested their time in this document. I have one
> blocking comment that I believe should be easy to resolve, and one fairly major
> comment that should be trivial to fix.
> 
> §8.1.1:
> 
> >  o  The Uri-Path option is set to "j".
> 
> COAP URIs are generally subject to BCP 190 restrictions, which would require
> the path to either be provisioned, discovered, or under the ".well-known"
> tree. The use of a reserved domain name here may change the rationale; but for
> the sake of not establishing a precedent for path squatting in CoAP, this
> document needs to clearly explain the rationale of why BCP 190 should not
> apply in this case. Alternately, the implied URI can be changed to something
> like "coap://6tisch.arpa/.well-known/j"

Note also the parameter update exchange describe in Section 8.2, where the
joined node is supposed to act as a CoAp server and expose the "/j"
resource.  The justification of the reserved domain name does not seem to
apply to that case, which seems to suggest that .well-known will be needed.

-Ben