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

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

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://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-cmpv2-coap-transport/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
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://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 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 ?