Skip to content

Gorry Fairhurst's review #59

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Open
marco-tiloca-sics wants to merge 42 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Gorry Fairhurst's review #59

marco-tiloca-sics wants to merge 42 commits into from

Conversation

@marco-tiloca-sics
Copy link
Contributor

@marco-tiloca-sics marco-tiloca-sics commented Dec 14, 2025

This PR addresses the review from Gorry Fairhurst archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/irEzlcDwuZtzgpTWgDE0n5nw3Wg/

@marco-tiloca-sics
Acknowledgements
e746a56
@marco-tiloca-sics
Added pointers to updates sections of RFC 7252 and RFC 7641
3497313
@marco-tiloca-sics
Editorial
b453d8f
@marco-tiloca-sics
For "ASM", used normative reference to RFC 1112 and RFC 8085
dfe261a
@marco-tiloca-sics
Recommended approach for re-sending group requests
322eabd
@marco-tiloca-sics
Clarifications on Token values used
3e95eab
@marco-tiloca-sics
Clarified use of ETag values at the client
f6c5530
@marco-tiloca-sics
Use of normative/non-normative language about congestion control
461ec02
@marco-tiloca-sics
Clarified use of DEFAULT_LEISURE
b467b68
@marco-tiloca-sics
Clarified use of DEFAULT_LEISURE
c311cb9
@marco-tiloca-sics
Clarified that servers must verify the aliveness of observer clients
999d7e1
@marco-tiloca-sics
Recommended use of block-wise at the server's initiative for large re…
66d77d8 
…sponses
@marco-tiloca-sics
Avoid normative language on supporting only some IPv6 scopes for mult…
13fff48 
…icast
@marco-tiloca-sics
Editorial
728d37f
@marco-tiloca-sics
Added/reordered text to mention as early as possible that NoSec is no…
058c583 
…t recommended
@marco-tiloca-sics
Avoid unnecessary normative language
1ce8c81
@marco-tiloca-sics
Typo
509199f
@marco-tiloca-sics
Editorial
06c4546
@marco-tiloca-sics
Use IPv6 addresses intended for examples in documentation
45c578f
@marco-tiloca-sics
Aligned example address used in Appendix A of RFC 9176
26336d0
@marco-tiloca-sics
No suggestion/recommendation on multicast addresses to use
33d1d3a
@marco-tiloca-sics
Editorial
2d08fb5
@marco-tiloca-sics
Editorial
8e0d462
@marco-tiloca-sics
Editorial
db06f08
@marco-tiloca-sics
Editorial
3da3a5e
@marco-tiloca-sics
Added reference to IANA registry
74ed27f
@marco-tiloca-sics
CoAP groups with same address and different port number are not recom…
7576029 
…mended
@marco-tiloca-sics
Added reference to IANA registry
454615f
@marco-tiloca-sics
Clarified support of port number 5683 with "All CoAP Nodes" IP multic…
9ccfce6 
…ast addresses
@marco-tiloca-sics
Editorial
7bc6bd8
EskoDijk
EskoDijk reviewed Dec 16, 2025
View reviewed changes
EskoDijk
EskoDijk reviewed Dec 16, 2025
View reviewed changes
EskoDijk
EskoDijk reviewed Dec 16, 2025
View reviewed changes
EskoDijk
EskoDijk reviewed Dec 16, 2025
View reviewed changes
EskoDijk
EskoDijk reviewed Dec 16, 2025
View reviewed changes
EskoDijk
EskoDijk reviewed Dec 16, 2025
View reviewed changes
EskoDijk
EskoDijk reviewed Dec 16, 2025
View reviewed changes
EskoDijk
EskoDijk requested changes Dec 16, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Collaborator

@EskoDijk EskoDijk left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Left some comments and suggestions.

marco-tiloca-sics and others added 4 commits December 16, 2025 18:27
@marco-tiloca-sics
Editorial
6d3782e
@marco-tiloca-sics @EskoDijk
Update draft-ietf-core-groupcomm-bis.md
5e024d7 
Co-authored-by: Esko Dijk <EskoDijk@users.noreply.github.com>
@marco-tiloca-sics
Editorial
6a7e233
@marco-tiloca-sics @EskoDijk
Update draft-ietf-core-groupcomm-bis.md
88bfbed 
Co-authored-by: Esko Dijk <EskoDijk@users.noreply.github.com>
@EskoDijk
Clarify RFC 7641 client interest validation requirements by pointing …
5e79952 
…to Section 7 also (which has more requirements).
@EskoDijk
Copy link
Collaborator

EskoDijk commented Dec 22, 2025

@marco-tiloca-sics I really wanted to add the "Section 7" RFC 7641 reference as per the last commit.
Because two sections both have crucial MUST requirements related to validating client interest. But I can't seem to find the right syntax to do this - in the past, this worked easily for me.

@marco-tiloca-sics
Copy link
Contributor Author

marco-tiloca-sics commented Dec 22, 2025

@marco-tiloca-sics I really wanted to add the "Section 7" RFC 7641 reference as per the last commit. Because two sections both have crucial MUST requirements related to validating client interest. But I can't seem to find the right syntax to do this - in the past, this worked easily for me.

Now fixed in 2f675b1

The notation is {{Sections 4.5 and 7 of RFC7641}}, or {{Sections 1, 4.5 and 7 of RFC7641}} if there were more than two sections.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@EskoDijk EskoDijk EskoDijk approved these changes

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@marco-tiloca-sics @EskoDijk