Re: [Ace] call for adoption for draft-marin-ace-wg-coap-eap

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

> Daniel Migault <[e-mail]> Thu, 21 January 2021 13:13 UTC
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The charter approval by the IESG is expected to be approved in the
> coming weeks. In the meanwhile, this email starts a call for adoption
> on work that has been included in the charter. Of course, adoption is
> contingent on the rechartering succeeding.
> 
> The document called for adoption is draft-marin-ace-wg-coap-eap
> available here: 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-marin-ace-wg-coap-eap-07
> 
> Please state your opinion on whether this work should not or should
> be adopted by the WG and express your motivation for such a
> statement. The call for adoption closes on February 4.
> 
> Yours, Daniel
> 
> 
> -- Daniel Migault Ericsson
> 

Hi,

This is my first post to this list.

We agreed internally that we at CEA support the adoption of this draft.

We have a few comments:

> ·        §3 “two different sequence _flow_” (typo: ‘s’ missing);
> 
> ·        §3 “_should_ be valid”: I do not like the feeling of
> uncertainty given by this lowercase ‘should’. What would be the
> restraints to this statement? Which key-deriving methods would not be
> acceptable?
> 
> ·        Page 5 “_on the contrary_, if DTLS”. I would replace « on
> the contrary » with “on the other hand” or “alternatively”… DTLS is
> not the opposite of OSCORE ;)
> 
> ·        PANA RFC is referenced but not quoted. I have to admit that
> my knowledge of IETF edition rules is now almost inexistent, so maybe
> it is acceptable to reference background RFCs that one does not
> actually quote in the text;
> 
> ·        You could find worthwhile to quote RFC6677, which seems (I
> may be wrong) relevant to the topic you address.

Yours,

Alexandre PETRESCU