Re: [Ace] draft-ietf-ace-coap-est-00

Michael Richardson <> Wed, 14 March 2018 01:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8FB2126B6D; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 18:40:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o9LpebAtepBn; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 18:40:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F199124BFA; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 18:40:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B1CB20091; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 21:49:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 927828106B; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 21:40:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <001d01d3b8b4$f6e71600$e4b54200$> <>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7-RC3; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 21:40:36 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ace] draft-ietf-ace-coap-est-00
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments \(ace\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 01:40:40 -0000

peter van der Stok <> wrote:
    >> *  In section 6- All proxies are required by CoAP blocking to re-assemble
    >> the entire message at the proxy.  It can re-block things going to the next
    >> proxy.  While there is no requirement that the proxy get the entire message
    >> before sending on pieces, this should be common practice and would be
    >> required for a CoAP/HTTP proxy.

    > Agree fully, we need to clarify that.

If we are talking about CoAP->HTTP proxy, then clearly that's absolutely true.
How could it be any other way?  We can't do CoAP block mode over HTTP that
I know of :-)

There are other proxy types that we need to describe.

    >> * Should probably add a note in section 6 that any proxy that terminates
    >> the
    >> DTLS connection is going to be required to act as an RA.  RAs are required
    >> to have the entire request for adding authentication as necessary.

    > This is visible in the figure of section 6, but needs elaboration in the
    > text.

I don't understand why we have that paragraph.
An end point that terminates the Pledge (D)TLS connection and acts as
an RA *IS* a Join Registrar, not a Proxy.

Michael Richardson <>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-