Re: [Ace] [T2TRG] Constrained Node/Network Cluster @ IETF104: DRAFT AGENDA

On Feb 23, 2019, at 05:59, Carsten Bormann wrote: > > > Here is my usual eclectic condensed agenda based on the DRAFT AGENDA > for IETF104. Remember that there is still quite some potential for > changes. And how could I forget: FRIDAY, March 22, 2019 — Fri 0930–1800 T2TRG Work Meeting —

Re: [Ace] WGLC for draft-ietf-ace-coap-est

Hi Klaus, Thanks for the thorough review. All your issues identified are tracked here https://github.com/SanKumar2015/EST-coaps/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93=is%3Aissue+%22Klaus+WGLC%22 . We tried to address all of them. The fixes we are putting in are spelled out in the github issues themselves.

Re: [Ace] Embedded Content Types

> -Original Message- > From: Michael Richardson > Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 8:46 AM > To: Carsten Bormann > Cc: Jim Schaad ; Panos Kampanakis (pkampana) > ; ace ; Klaus Hartke > ; draft-ietf-ace-coap-...@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Ace] Embedded Content Types > > > Carsten

Re: [Ace] Embedded Content Types

Carsten Bormann wrote: >> I am thinking of two different URLs, that is not do the difference by >> a query parameter but by changing the URI. > Note that the query parameters are part of the URI, so fundamentally > there is no difference between putting the info there or in the

Re: [Ace] EDHOC standardization

Hi Hannes, No wonder that ECDHE-PSK is not widely used in (D)TLS when the relevant ECDHE-PSK cipher suites TLS_ECDHE_PSK_WITH_AES_128_CCM_8_SHA256 for TLS 1.2 (and similarly ECDHE + PSK + TLS_AES_128_CCM_8_SHA256 for TLS 1.3) were standardized just a few months ago (RFC 8442 and RFC 8446).