Dear Roni,
Thank you for the comments.
Please see responses inline.
Reviewer: Roni Even Review result: Ready with Nits 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 for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!UZD6jR7sQAMvDJNjs7PBbVFyprq4jZ3pPKk96J2yAE4EKrLQ2cHvTWoPuQT_VIH4yol6MijD2cX4l6K5$ >. Document: draft-ietf-ace-wg-coap-eap-?? Reviewer: Roni Even Review Date: 2024-01-24 IETF LC End Date: 2024-01-25 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: The document is ready for publication as a standard track rfc with nits Major issues: Minor issues: Nits/editorial comments: The document defines a well known uri. Through out the document it keeps the name well-known but it should be replaced with the specified coap-eap by the authors or as a directive to the rfc editor. Could you please, clarify this a bit?
The text well-known URI is in the following places.
Do you mean we should replace where there is a reference in the text with "/.well-known/coap-eap" by coap-eap?
I have cross out in the list where I think it could be removed. I you could confirm this it would be great.
________
- Figures
- Section 3. CoAP-EAP Operation
"To access the authentication service, this document defines the
well-known URI "/.well-known/coap-eap" (to be
assigned by IANA)"
- 3.1 Discovery
The CoAP-EAP application can be accessed through the well-known
URI "coap-eap" for the trigger message (Step 0).
-3.2 Flow of Operation
""POST /.well-known/coap-eap" request"
- 3.5.3. Duplicated message with /.well-known/coap-eap
The reception of the trigger message in Step 0 containing (I would
add -- "the URI") /.well-known/coap-eap needs
some additional considerations, as the resource is always
available in the EAP authenticator.
...
If an old "POST /.well-known/coap-eap" (Step 0)...
________
As for the iana registration request rfc8615 registration procedure is specification required and not expert review.
Ok, we will update this in the text, thank you.
There is also a missing column “state” probably should be permanent.
Thank you, we will change this, following the clarification from
the well-known URI expert comment.
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
