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

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

peter van der Stok <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-