Hi Michael,
I liked the reference to RFC6550 because it shows that other RFCs
provide the same modes; and it was argued to standardize only one mode.
Peter
Michael Richardson schreef op 2022-04-11 20:04:
The document defines a mechanism to assign a Device (Pledge) to a
(anima) domain, repre
On 12-Apr-22 04:44, Michael Richardson wrote:
Toerless Eckert wrote:
> The main difference is therefore really the replacement of mDNS
> encoding/transport of the service announcements with GRASP
> encoding/transport and we heard from Stuart Cheshire that he agrees and
> sup
> The document defines a mechanism to assign a Device (Pledge) to a
> (anima) domain, represented by a Registrar, using an intermediate node
> (e.g. 6LR) called constrained Joint Proxy. Once that the Pledge is
> enrolled to the network, it can take the role of a Joint Proxy.
While
Toerless Eckert wrote:
> The main difference is therefore really the replacement of mDNS
> encoding/transport of the service announcements with GRASP
> encoding/transport and we heard from Stuart Cheshire that he agrees and
> supports our approach from the drafts.
I think that ma
Hi Ines,
Many thanks for your review.
Please see inline comments below.
Greetings,
Peter
Reviewer: Ines Robles
Review result: On the Right Track
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG
HI Malisa,
thanks for the review.
Toerless having reacted to the first pargraph, I will react to the last
part.
Plese, see below.
Peter
Mališa Vučinić via Datatracker schreef op 2022-04-08 15:23:
Reviewer: Mališa Vučinić
Review result: Has Issues
I have reviewed this document as part of
