Re: [Ace] Shepard comments draft-ietf-ace-coap-est-08

[Peter van der Stok <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jim,

thanks for the review.
see below.

Peter
Jim Schaad schreef op 2019-02-16 20:55:

> 1.  In section 10.1 the last sentence of the first paragraph and the first
> sentence of the last paragraph duplicate each other.  This should be cleaned
> up.
> 
> <pvds>removed the 2nd instance </pvds>
> 
> 2.  Correct the grammar in the first sentence of section 10.2 -  s/registers
> a new/registers new/
> <pvds> done </pvds>
> 
> 3.  The correct example DNS name is est-coaps.example.org not
> est-coaps.example.ietf.org.   Please correct this.  (See RFC 2606)
> 
> <pvds> sorry about that, corrected that everywhere </pvds>
> 
> 4.  The query in section 5.1 to a resource directory is not correct.  It
> would not go to /.well-known/core but to /rd-lookup (or what ever name is
> used by the RD).   If this is not intended to be an RD query, then the
> sentence about it above can be omitted.  
> 
> <pvds> removed anchor because query to server and not RD </pvds>
> 
> 5.  Please remove the "anchor" target attribute from the response from the
> RD.  I believe that this is no longer required and it is just adding noise
> without adding value.  If this is intended to be from well-known then it is
> sufficient to have the anchor but not to  have the authority section in the
> href.  
> 
> </est>;rt="ace.est";anchor="coaps://2001:db8::123]:61617"
> 
> <pvds> Removed anchor, see above, but left the authority section because of port example. </pvds>
> 
> 6.  You have registered 282 and 283 as content types, however you also do
> not define anything that uses these types.  Either some text about the
> content types needs to exist or potentially the registrations should be
> abandoned.
> 
> <pvds>are needed for other future anima documents, but have them removed </pvds>
> 
> 7.  There is an outstanding review from Klaus that needs to be addressed.
> 
> <pvds> we are working on it. will discuss answers to-morrow between authors </pvds>
> 
> 8.  There is still an open issue dealing with content types.  I have
> requested that this be added to the agenda for the next CoRE interim
> meeting.
> 
> <pvds> Absolutely. we hope for additional text elsewhere </pvds>
> 
> Jim