[core] [Errata Rejected] RFC7252 (5284)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Wed, 18 January 2023 09:27 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com>
X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E22AC14CE2F; Wed, 18 Jan 2023 01:27:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.647
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.647 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qNQUA1vF8G6d; Wed, 18 Jan 2023 01:27:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (rfc-editor.org [50.223.129.200]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44411C14CE29; Wed, 18 Jan 2023 01:27:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id 34295143F5B3; Wed, 18 Jan 2023 01:27:44 -0800 (PST)
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com, zach.shelby@arm.com, hartke@tzi.org, cabo@tzi.org
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: francesca.palombini@ericsson.com, iesg@ietf.org, core@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20230118092744.34295143F5B3@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2023 01:27:44 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/dP0r_lcTZ_3wwMvstKs0SGb-CwE>
Subject: [core] [Errata Rejected] RFC7252 (5284)
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <core.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/core/>
List-Post: <mailto:core@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2023 09:27:48 -0000
The following errata report has been rejected for RFC7252, "The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5284 -------------------------------------- Status: Rejected Type: Technical Reported by: Mohamed Boucadair <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Date Reported: 2018-03-09 Rejected by: Francesca Palombini (IESG) Section: 5.3.1 Original Text ------------- The client SHOULD generate tokens in such a way that tokens currently in use for a given source/destination endpoint pair are unique. Corrected Text -------------- The client SHOULD generate tokens in such a way that tokens currently in use for a given source/destination endpoint pair are unique per request. Notes ----- Multiple requests may be active for a given source/destination endpoint pair. The OLD text is thus broken. The NEW text is aligned with the definition of the Token: A token is intended for use as a client-local identifier for differentiating between concurrent requests (see Section 5.3); it could have been called a "request ID". Further, using the same token for a given source/destination endpoint pair have some implications, for example, for applications which require the support of multiple observe queries because RFC7641 states the following: The entry in the list of observers is keyed by the client endpoint and the token specified by the client in the request. If an entry with a matching endpoint/token pair is already present in the list (which, for example, happens when the client wishes to reinforce its interest in a resource), the server MUST NOT add a new entry but MUST replace or update the existing one. --VERIFIER NOTES-- After discussing with the working group, it was agreed that the original text is correct and that the addition is redundant and does not help clarify it. -------------------------------------- RFC7252 (draft-ietf-core-coap-18) -------------------------------------- Title : The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) Publication Date : June 2014 Author(s) : Z. Shelby, K. Hartke, C. Bormann Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Constrained RESTful Environments APP Area : Applications Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [core] [Errata Rejected] RFC7252 (5284) RFC Errata System