:cigdem.sen...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 4:58 AM
To: Daniel Migault mailto:mglt.i...@gmail.com>>; Ace Wg
mailto:ace@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [Ace] MQTT, OSCORE, DTLS profiles - recommendation on RS - AS
communication
Hello Daniel,
One thing I didn't have a chance
gt;
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 14, 2021 4:58 AM
> *To:* Daniel Migault ; Ace Wg
> *Subject:* Re: [Ace] MQTT, OSCORE, DTLS profiles - recommendation on RS -
> AS communication
>
> Hello Daniel,
>
> One thing I didn't have a chance to ask yesterday in the interim was about
&g
ughts so we can move the draft forward.
Regarding the second point, yes, the draft that introduces ace+json should
register it.
Yours,
Daniel
From: Ace on behalf of Cigdem Sengul
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 4:58 AM
To: Daniel Migault ; Ace Wg
Subject: Re: [Ac
Hello Daniel,
One thing I didn't have a chance to ask yesterday in the interim was about
the registration of the 'ace+json' application type.
Francesca brought this up as the MQTT profile describes the HTTPS
interactions differently than the core draft which says " When HTTP is
used as a
Cigdem and Daniel,
Thanks for working to get this resolved. It will be one less thing for me
to comment on :)
-Ben
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 08:57:53AM -0400, Daniel Migault wrote:
> Thanks for the update, that works for me.
>
> Yours,
> Daniel
>
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 8:44 AM Cigdem Sengul
Thanks for the update, that works for me.
Yours,
Daniel
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 8:44 AM Cigdem Sengul
wrote:
> Hello Daniel,
> I propose the following change to clarify the TLS use - if you are happy
> with it, I will update the document:
>
> To provide communication confidentiality and RS
Hello Daniel,
I propose the following change to clarify the TLS use - if you are happy
with it, I will update the document:
To provide communication confidentiality and RS authentication to MQTT
clients, TLS
is used, and TLS 1.3 [RFC8446] is RECOMMENDED. This document makes
the same
Thanks for the clarification. I am more concerned by having the profiles
coherent with the framework than having the profiles providing the same
capabilities. I am fine with the dtls profile making the introspection out
of scope and leave it to the WG or co-author if they are willing to change
it
Hi,
Now that the authz document is being consolidated, I do have some minor
concerns regarding the recommendations mentioned in the profile documents, that
might require an additional update.
The update to the authz document indicates more more clearly than before that
profiles need to provide
