Re: [6tisch] [Ace] Optimizing EAP-over-CoAP payload

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Mon, 12 October 2015 19:02 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 855141B3400; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 12:02:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.55
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XgiJG1mPRe5R; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 12:02:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 256531B349B; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 12:01:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de
Received: from submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::b]) by mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t9CJ1ZwU021324; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 21:01:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from nar.local (p5DC7F6AE.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [93.199.246.174]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3nZTrG6LSHz4psB; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 21:01:34 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <561C038C.7090305@tzi.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 21:01:32 +0200
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
User-Agent: Postbox 4.0.5 (Macintosh/20150923)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rafa Marin Lopez <rafa@um.es>
References: <56162F1A.5020503@ackl.io> <DEC84E1F-F40D-48C2-8CBD-8262FADD45B2@um.es>
In-Reply-To: <DEC84E1F-F40D-48C2-8CBD-8262FADD45B2@um.es>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2.3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/ROEGSSMKHJaD2klneWt-lgq2HNU>
Cc: 6tisch@ietf.org, Alexander Pelov <a@ackl.io>, Dan Garcia <dan.garcia@um.es>, ace@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [6tisch] [Ace] Optimizing EAP-over-CoAP payload
X-BeenThere: 6tisch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discuss link layer model for Deterministic IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE 802.15.4e, and impacts on RPL and 6LoWPAN such as resource allocation" <6tisch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6tisch>, <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6tisch/>
List-Post: <mailto:6tisch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch>, <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 19:02:05 -0000

Rafa Marin Lopez wrote:
> I would say that using zero-length token is possible. What I am not sure is whether make it mandatory or not. I mean we could say that if the client sends a zero-length token the server can consider it OK as per the text above. If there is a non-zero length token value should be also fine.

There is never a reason to discuss token values -- these are chosen by
the requester based on its needs, and there is never a reason for a
responder to question that choice.

Grüße, Carsten