Looks fine.
Jim
> -Original Message-
> From: Francesca Palombini
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2019 4:55 AM
> To: Jim Schaad ; draft-ietf-ace-oscore-
> prof...@ietf.org
> Cc: ace@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Shepard comments on draft-ietf-ace-oscore-profile
>
> Hi Jim,
>
> Here is the updat
> -Original Message-
> From: Panos Kampanakis (pkampana)
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2019 9:54 AM
> To: Jim Schaad ; draft-ietf-ace-coap-...@ietf.org
> Cc: ace@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Ace] Shepard comments draft-ietf-ace-coap-est-08
>
> Hi Jim,
>
> About
>
> > 4. The query in sect
Hi Jim,
About
> 4. The query in section 5.1 to a resource directory is not correct. It
> would not go to /.well-known/core but to /rd-lookup (or what ever name is
> used by the RD). If this is not intended to be an RD query, then the
> sentence about it above can be omitted.
> 5. Plea
Hi Valery,
On 2019-02-18, 08:07, "Valery Smyslov" wrote:
Hi,
> Richard Barnes wrote:
> > Finally, to be totally honest, I find the EDHOC spec pretty
inscrutable. A
> > little more prose to explain what's going on would go a long way
toward
> > helping thi
Hi Michael,
On 2019-02-18, 02:35, "Ace on behalf of Michael Richardson"
wrote:
Richard Barnes wrote:
> Finally, to be totally honest, I find the EDHOC spec pretty
inscrutable. A
> little more prose to explain what's going on would go a long way
toward
> helping t
Hi Richard,
From: Richard Barnes
Date: Friday, 15 February 2019 at 17:19
To: Göran Selander
Cc: "secdispa...@ietf.org" , "ace@ietf.org"
Subject: Re: [Secdispatch] FW: [secdir] EDHOC and Transports
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:13 AM Göran Selander
mailto:goran.selan...@ericsson.com>> wrote:
Hi
> On Feb 18, 2019, at 15:59, Sebastian Echeverria
> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I have a short comment about error responses from an RS in
> draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz-21. More specifically, my question is about
> section 5.8.2. In the second paragraph, it states “The response code MUST be
> 4.
Hello,
I have a short comment about error responses from an RS in
draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz-21. More specifically, my question is about section
5.8.2. In the second paragraph, it states “The response code MUST be 4.01
(Unauthorized) in case the client has not performed the proof-of-possession,
Hi Jim,
thanks for the review.
see below.
Peter
Jim Schaad schreef op 2019-02-16 20:55:
> 1. In section 10.1 the last sentence of the first paragraph and the first
> sentence of the last paragraph duplicate each other. This should be cleaned
> up.
>
> removed the 2nd instance
>
> 2. Correc
Hi Jim,
Here is the update including your comments. It also includes minor comments
from Marco (thanks!) that we had missed before.
https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ace-oscore-profile.txt&url2=https://ace-wg.github.io/ace-oscore-profile/draft-ietf-ace-osco
Hi Rene,
These are interesting ideas. As you say, EDHOC is currently optimized for a
minimum number of messages and bytes. Spreading out the bytes and computations
could be beneficial in some applications. EDHOC is currently based on SIGMA-I.
The four-message variant would be based on SIGMA-R w
11 matches
Mail list logo