Hi Rob, sorry for the late response. Please find our comments inline.
Grüße Olaf On 2021-03-25, Robert Wilton via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-ace-dtls-authorize-16: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ace-dtls-authorize/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Hi, > > Thanks for this document. Like Eric V, I was slightly surprised to see this > defined to use DTLS 1.2 when DTLS 1.3 is on the same telechat, which is > obsoleting the DTLS 1.2 RFC. > > But what is not obvious to me is whether the protocol is allowed to > use a later > version of DTLS, or whether it is strictly tied to DTLS 1.2 and an > updated RFC > would be required to use a newer version of DTLS. Either way, > possibly a few > words to clarify this may be beneficial to readers, but I'll leave it to the > author's discretion. Thank you for raising this issue. We have addressed this in our response to Éric's review, suggesting a clarifying sentence that in general, this specification would also apply to DTLS 1.3. _______________________________________________ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
