[Ace] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-ace-coap-est-17: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Adam Roach via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ace-coap-est-17: Discuss

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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


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



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Thanks for the work that the authors and working group put into this document.
I have one DISCUSS-level comment that should be very easy to resolve, and
a small number of editorial nits.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§9:

Since this specification is adding new endpoints under /.well-known/est,
it needs to update the "Well-Known URIs" registry so that the entry for
"est" indicates this document (in addition to RFC 7030).


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


§5.3:

>  The Content-Format (HTTP Media-Type equivalent) of the CoAP message

HTTP doesn't have a "Media-Type" field. Presumably this intends to
say "Content-Type"?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§5.3:

>  Media-Types specified in the HTTP Content-Type header (Section 3.2.2

Nit "...header field..."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§5.5:

>  HTTP response code 202 with a Retry-After header in [RFC7030] has no

Nit "...header field..."