Message Bindings section text (Klaus WGLC review 2/12/2019)

[csosto-pk]

Klaus pointed out

The use of confirmable messages for requests is completely unrelated to whether a response is expected or not. Also, it is entirely inappropriate for an application layered on top of CoAP to mandate the message type.

regarding text

All EST-coaps messages expect a response from the server, thus the client MUST send the requests over confirmable CON CoAP messages.

Also he said

And it would be entirely inappropriate if they were. So I'm not sure what to do with this information.

about

The Ver, TKL, Token, and Message ID values of the CoAP header are not affected by EST.

And suggested to add Block Option in

The CoAP Options used are Uri-Host, Uri-Path, Uri-Port, Content-Format, Accept and Location-Path.

and add

Of course, a server must be prepared to receive requests that include other kinds of options (such as "ETag" or "If-Match") and handle these in accordance to RFC 7252.

[csosto-pk]

Fixed. Removed normative language and rephrased to

All EST-coaps request messages expect and acknowledgement (with a response payload), thus EST-coaps requests are confirmable CON CoAP messages.

Also added

... Content-Format, Block, Accept and Location-Path

and

Other COAP Options should be handled in accordance with [RFC7252]

And removed

The Ver, TKL, Token, and Message ID values of the CoAP header are not affected by EST.