Re: [core] Last Call: <draft-ietf-core-etch-02.txt> (Patch and Fetch Methods for Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)) to Proposed Standard

Carsten Bormann <> Thu, 25 August 2016 05:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7847E12D0A9; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 22:55:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id seA5tUsiMCOe; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 22:55:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1279B12B017; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 22:55:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u7P5t5h4014615 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 25 Aug 2016 07:55:13 +0200 (CEST)
X-Mailer: emacs (via feedmail 11-beta-1 I)
From: Carsten Bormann <>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <>
Subject: Re: [core] Last Call: <draft-ietf-core-etch-02.txt> (Patch and Fetch Methods for Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)) to Proposed Standard
References: <> <>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 07:54:46 +0200
In-Reply-To: <> (Roy T. Fielding's message of "Wed, 24 Aug 2016 09:32:17 -0700")
Message-ID: <>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4.50 (darwin)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 05:55:22 -0000

"Roy T. Fielding" <> writes:

>> The document has a reference to obsolete RFC 2616, this is intentional.
> What is that supposed to mean?  The reference is intentionally wrong?

RFC 7252 is referencing RFC 2616 for its security considerations,
because the RFC 723x series wasn't out yet at the time CoAP was
completed.  draft-ietf-core-etch references RFC 7252 for its security
considerations.  This implies a reference to RFC 2616 as well, which we
decided to make explicit (it's hard to be explicit enough about security
considerations).  We could change that to leave it implicit, rendering
the downref less visible.

> I looked at the text and it should be referencing section 9 of RFC7231,
> not section 15 of RFC2616.  Just fix the reference or remove it entirely

While we could add RFC 7231 to the above reference (which, as I said is
already implicitly there), a single security considerations section out
of one of the RFC 723x documents does not cover the entire security
considerations of RFC 2616 (e.g., section 15.7 does very much apply,
some of which seems to have been moved to RFC 7234).  Do you see
anything specific in RFC 7231 that we should cover that isn't mentioned
in RFC 2616?

We could use draft-ietf-core-etch more or less randomly as the point
where we finally clean up the editorial issues caused by the sharding of
RFC 2616.  The authors so far did not see a reason to do that exactly in
this document, which describes functionality not really touched by that
sharding.  Should we, anyway?

Gruesse, Carsten