IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Klaus Hartke <hartke@projectcool.de> Fri, 20 December 2019 16:35 UTC

Return-Path: <hartke@projectcool.de>
X-Original-To: ace@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ace@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CD85120859; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 08:35:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7ceKyZL1FtH4; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 08:35:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wp382.webpack.hosteurope.de (wp382.webpack.hosteurope.de [IPv6:2a01:488:42:1000:50ed:8597::]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41D3A120856; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 08:35:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt1-f170.google.com ([209.85.160.170]); authenticated by wp382.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) id 1iiLF5-0002DW-Ep; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 17:35:07 +0100
Received: by mail-qt1-f170.google.com with SMTP id j5so8657147qtq.9; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 08:35:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXIfly114+93YUt+ap2tcYP4xQQM18eUrpt3CpW6hWLbk++8dnY UxacY1n+veUViYD8JYlknN4XEeJdEjjvBM91Mrk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx/ZIp4ex0XyQnXMQdjcklao/LvtNM2P7YgDktj6MsZT5sF6gplnxF6Hz5vOQeY10Yu8dBQG1z6ohDV+O62twc=
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:1496:: with SMTP id l22mr8353011qtj.38.1576859706386; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 08:35:06 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <157667562611.29907.6804425237641037015.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20191220004728.GF35479@kduck.mit.edu> <d798b1a3-8462-4605-a8d1-71fd9c3b6421@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <d798b1a3-8462-4605-a8d1-71fd9c3b6421@www.fastmail.com>
From: Klaus Hartke <hartke@projectcool.de>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 17:34:30 +0100
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAAzbHvZdLMQyX_wpeVCErzqS=0q9n5b-XbXfGDN_2iQAGRX6Yw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAzbHvZdLMQyX_wpeVCErzqS=0q9n5b-XbXfGDN_2iQAGRX6Yw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
Cc: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>, draft-ietf-ace-coap-est@ietf.org, Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>, ace-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Ace Wg <ace@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de; hartke@projectcool.de; 1576859712; 79f84883;
X-HE-SMSGID: 1iiLF5-0002DW-Ep
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ace/rwEwGFo70bQS9uGIByYR_6aReV4>
Subject: Re: [Ace] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-ace-coap-est-17: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: ace@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments \(ace\)" <ace.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ace>, <mailto:ace-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ace/>
List-Post: <mailto:ace@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ace-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace>, <mailto:ace-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 16:35:14 -0000

Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> I am tempted to suggest that the text should be change to "SHOULD include Uri-Host and Uri-Port". Basically, if an implementation knows for sure that it is not needed, the SHOULD can be violated, but the recommended default is safe for all cases.

I would prefer if draft-ietf-ace-coap-est didn't say anything here,
since the Uri-Host and Uri-Port options and whether they should be
omitted or not is entirely specified by CoAP [RFC7252].*

At most, draft-ietf-ace-coap-est can give some implementation
guidance. I don't really see why that's necessary, though, since the
implementation of Uri-Host and Uri-Port is the same for all CoAP-based
applications and not specific to EST.

Klaus

*(In short, RFC 7252 specifies that Uri-Host and Uri-Port are omitted
if and only if their respective default values are desired.)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email