Re: [Ace] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-ace-cmpv2-coap-transport-09: (with COMMENT)

[Mohit Sahni <[e-mail]>]

Hi Eric,
Thanks for your review and comments. Please see my response to
your comments below:

>## idnits issues
>
>https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-ace-cmpv2-coap->transport-09.txt <https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-ace-cmpv2-coap-transport-09.txt> founds two important issues: wrong BCP14 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp14/> template and unused reference.
>>## Section 2.6

>

>The URI in this section uses "<profileLabel>", is it the same as "<name>"
in section 2.1 ? If so, may I suggest >to use the same term ?


<M.S.> I will update the draft with this suggestion.

## Section 4

Is "MAY" the right verb to be used in `If confidentiality is desired,
CoAP over DTLS [RFC9147 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9147/>]
MAY be used to provide confidentiality` ? I would have guessed a
"SHOULD", or are there alternatives to CoAP over DTLS ?

<M.S.> I will update the draft with this suggestion.


Thanks
Mohit

On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 12:02 PM Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-ace-cmpv2-coap-transport-09: No Objection
>
> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_about_groups_iesg_statements_handling-2Dballot-2Dpositions_&d=DwIDaQ&c=V9IgWpI5PvzTw83UyHGVSoW3Uc1MFWe5J8PTfkrzVSo&r=J7DgfMyeL26OZuy8d3qTy_h24Ff1NatxSKMgDUj2Kxg&m=GGTCYRhzXsTOeQEgluxjlBo5DvmdRlrSeM5AEU6PVNlgq8yXVT96EGhZTqiqTDjL&s=0Cha-rhN73wDVJ4SySoqlgvzHaFDuDGE5VMS4-1EPhk&e=
>
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dace-2Dcmpv2-2Dcoap-2Dtransport_&d=DwIDaQ&c=V9IgWpI5PvzTw83UyHGVSoW3Uc1MFWe5J8PTfkrzVSo&r=J7DgfMyeL26OZuy8d3qTy_h24Ff1NatxSKMgDUj2Kxg&m=GGTCYRhzXsTOeQEgluxjlBo5DvmdRlrSeM5AEU6PVNlgq8yXVT96EGhZTqiqTDjL&s=vVQhVM4c7HHnLXKllihqSiVjCuINaqLBgcFirPC_2HE&e=
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thank you for the work put into this document.
>
> Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
> appreciated even if only for my own education).
>
> Special thanks to Daniel Migault for the shepherd's detailed write-up
> including
> the WG consensus *and* the justification of the intended status.
>
> I hope that this review helps to improve the document,
>
> Regards,
>
> -éric
>
> # COMMENTS (non blocking)
>
> ## Reviews outside of ACE ?
>
> The shepherd's write-up and the mail archive do not mention any review by
> CORE
> WG of this document. I understand that CoAP is only a 'transport', but a
> quick
> review would have been beneficial.
>
> ## idnits issues
>
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__author-2Dtools.ietf.org_api_idnits-3Furl-3Dhttps-3A__www.ietf.org_archive_id_draft-2Dietf-2Dace-2Dcmpv2-2Dcoap-2Dtransport-2D09.txt&d=DwIDaQ&c=V9IgWpI5PvzTw83UyHGVSoW3Uc1MFWe5J8PTfkrzVSo&r=J7DgfMyeL26OZuy8d3qTy_h24Ff1NatxSKMgDUj2Kxg&m=GGTCYRhzXsTOeQEgluxjlBo5DvmdRlrSeM5AEU6PVNlgq8yXVT96EGhZTqiqTDjL&s=B6yDLd_rxm8Op5pnehh_gIIGFP7Zir7V-6Dx0ncsKdI&e=
> founds two important issues: wrong BCP14 template and unused reference.
>
> ## Section 2.6
>
> The URI in this section uses "<profileLabel>", is it the same as "<name>"
> in
> section 2.1 ? If so, may I suggest to use the same term ?
>
> ## Section 4
>
> Is "MAY" the right verb to be used in `If confidentiality is desired, CoAP
> over
> DTLS [RFC9147] MAY be used to provide confidentiality` ? I would have
> guessed a
> "SHOULD", or are there alternatives to CoAP over DTLS ?
>
>
>
>