[Ace] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-ace-extend-dtls-authorize-06: (with COMMENT)

[Robert Wilton via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ace-extend-dtls-authorize-06: 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://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ace-extend-dtls-authorize/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Minor level comments:

(1) p 2, sec 4.  Connection Establishment

     Clients and Resource Servers
   SHOULD support DTLS and MAY support TLS.

This seems to make successful interop a bit less likely to me.  Perhaps it
would be sensible to suggest that Resource Servers SHOULD support both DTLS and
TLS?

Nit level comments:

(2) p 1, sec 1.  Introduction

    UDP
   might be blocked on the path between the client and the RS, and the

Trivial nit (which the RFC editor will fix anyway), you are using RS here in
the introduction before it is defined in section 4.

(3) p 2, sec 4.  Connection Establishment

   As resource-constrained devices are not expected to support both
   transport layer security mechanisms.

Another nit, this sentence doesn't stand well on its own please drop the "As"
or link this sentence with the next.