On Dec 20, 2019, at 17:34, Klaus Hartke <har...@projectcool.de> wrote: > > I would prefer if draft-ietf-ace-coap-est didn't say anything here, > since the Uri-Host and Uri-Port options and whether they should be > omitted or not is entirely specified by CoAP [RFC7252].*
Klaus has an important point here. We need to be **much more** vigilant about specifications messing with their normative references. Saying how they are used, yes, but re-stating (or, worse, re-interpreting) normative material from those references is prone to creating dialects that no longer interoperate with their unadulterated originals. Unless these are hopelessly broken(*) and this is the only way to fix them, this is a MUST NOT. Grüße, Carsten (*) the normative reference EST has an example for that case: The use of content-transfer-encoding with HTTP, which is explicitly ruled out in Section 19.4.5 of RFC 2616 (and now appendix A.5 of RFC 7231). That was a count of RFC 7030 messing with a normative reference, and in turn **needed** to be messed with in CoAP-EST (and eventually needs to be fixed in the parent specification, too). _______________________________________________ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
