Re: [core] Chair's review of draft-ietf-core-echo-request-tag-03.txt

Christian M. Amsüss <> Wed, 20 February 2019 16:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 888E5130E8E; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 08:03:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.921
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.921 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=0.979] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9xdt8XCA1ZPS; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 08:03:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:4f8:190:3064::3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65C6A128B01; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 08:03:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2690A43569; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 17:03:14 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6582E36; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 17:03:13 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a02:b18:c13b:8010::71b]) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 271FC6A; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 17:03:13 +0100 (CET)
Received: (nullmailer pid 27807 invoked by uid 1000); Wed, 20 Feb 2019 16:03:12 -0000
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 17:03:12 +0100
From: Christian =?iso-8859-1?B?TS4gQW1z/HNz?= <>
To: Carsten Bormann <>
Cc: " WG" <>,
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="IJpNTDwzlM2Ie8A6"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [core] Chair's review of draft-ietf-core-echo-request-tag-03.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 16:03:31 -0000

Hello Carsten,

thanks for the review, addressing the points that are not still being
processed by the authors:

On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 03:58:02PM +0100, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> * Is "operation" the term we want to use henceforth?

Would "transfer" be more suitable? It's probably well-aligned with
RFC7959's use of the term to just give a precise definition again and
use that.

> * Section 3 is confused about Request-Tag Options and lists of those.
>   Why was the option marked repeatable?

The option is repeatable to allow tiny proxies to satisfy all their
blockwise-handling obligations by adding a per-sender Request-Tag
option. (The alternative would be that they string-append to any
existing Request-Tag option, which is somethign I'd perfer not to do as
an implementor).

That's outlined in section 3.5 but I agree that the wording is far from

> * Title and Abstract.  The title probably should mention CoAP.  The
>   abstract might want to say what the introduction already says: This
>   is for supporting specific use cases (i.e., not all use cases will
>   need these additions).

Addressed in the next version.

> * Introduction.  The introduction could say earlier that Request-Tag
>   is intended exclusively for combination with Block1 options.


Note that the Request-Tag option can be present in messages that carry
no Block1 option they are later messages of a combined Block1+Block2

> * Section 3 would benefit from explaining that Request-Tag is only
>   meant to be used with Block1 Options in requests.

Added (note as above). Is a MUST NOT be used in response messages
suitable there?

Thanks for your input

To use raw power is to make yourself infinitely vulnerable to greater powers.
  -- Bene Gesserit axiom