Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 17:33:26 -0500
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: consultancy@vanderstok.org
Cc: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>, draft-ietf-ace-coap-est@ietf.org,
 ace@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20180312223326.GA10699@kduck.kaduk.org>
References: <001d01d3b8b4$f6e71600$e4b54200$@augustcellars.com>
 <e426d5786082bdc863fbe6a5960c112b@xs4all.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <e426d5786082bdc863fbe6a5960c112b@xs4all.nl>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ace/S-Y62VE5UXJXsjYGqZh6xkpa6z4>
Subject: Re: [Ace] draft-ietf-ace-coap-est-00
Precedence: list

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 09:08:05AM +0100, peter van der Stok wrote:
> Hi Jim,
> 
> thanks for the comments. See my reactions below.
> Jim Schaad schreef op 2018-03-10 22:15:
> > I agree with Hannes, this version of the document is much cleaner and 
> > much
> > clearer.  I think that it has solved most of the problems that I 
> > initially
> > had with the draft.  It is not ready to progress as there are still 
> > sections
> > that are marked as TODO.  But it is much closer to finishing that it 
> > was.
> 
> That sounds hopeful. Agree about the TODOs
> > 
> > I still have a couple of comments from a quick read through of the 
> > document.
> > 
> > In section 2 - There will be a problem in that the port format 
> > extension is
> > being eliminated in TLS 1.3 - We may want to divide this into a 1.2 and 
> > 1.3
> > section for clarity.
> 
> You mean for backward compatibility?

For forwards compatibility, mostly, so we don't claim to require
something that does not exist in TLS 1.3.

-Ben