Michael Richardson <m...@sandelman.ca> wrote:
> Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthub...@cisco.com> wrote:
>> I'm looking for a consensus on how to address the following review
>> comment on the 6TiSCH Architecture by Benjamin:
> a) I don't think that any details about the Join Proxy belongs in the
> architecture document.
> Any text in the architecture document that says too much should be
> deferring to minimal security.
> b) It's not an HTTP PROXY with a CONNECT, and GET HTTP://.. support.
> It's not really an COAP PROXY (RFC7252 section 5.7).
> We describe it in section 4.3.2 as an application layer proxy.
> It can only send traffic to the JRC, and no other place.
> The description of it in section 7 of minimal-security as
> a RFC7252 forward-proxy does imply that it provides any kind
> of HTTP-proxy-like functionality.
The description of it in section 7 of minimal-security as
a RFC7252 forward-proxy does **not** imply that it provides any kind
of HTTP-proxy-like functionality. Even HTTP forward-proxies are not
proxies that can be abused, they are typically load balancers.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list 6tisch@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
