Re: [Ace] FW: WGLC comments draft-ietf-ace-coap-est-07

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

https://goo.gl/LT4HYh  is a diff from -06 to current.
Panos has done a great job updating this according to the issues raised
during the WGLC. Thank you

I have re-read diffs to catch up, and have these minor author tweaks/questions.

> Client authentication via DTLS Client Certificate is mandatory.

I wonder if this should go into it's own section so that one can more easily
say, "Please see section x.y.z"

s/enrolment/enrollment/   <- use American spelling, I guess. We had both.

section 6:
        REQ: GET /.well-known/core?rt=ace.est*

I didn't know the trailing "*" was a thing.
  </est>; rt="ace.est",

I guess I have to re-read the Core Link resource discovery document.
Can a server respond with </>; ?? it's shorter, and I think would be valid?

>  If
>                        the default root resource requests fail, the client
>              SHOULD fall back
>                        to doing a resource discovery.  Resource discovery
>              SHOULD be employed
>                        when non-default URIs (like /est or
>              /est/ArbitraryLabel) or ports are
>                                      supported by the server or when the
>              client is unaware of what EST-
>                        coaps resources are available by the server.

This implies that a server is not required to support /.well-known/est
We are not clear about this.  I would prefer that the server ALWAYS supports
the well-known names, such that the client can skip doing resource discovery
if it thinks that the extra bytes in the URL matter less than additional
round trip to do discovery.


--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-