core-wg coap-tcp-tls issues

core-wg / coap-tcp-tls

4 stars 5 forks source link

issues

Newest

Newest Most commented Recently updated Oldest Least commented Least recently updated

Clarification for the Max-Message-Size

#193 hannestschofenig closed 6 years ago
0
Support CSM Bad Option for Signal Release

#192 jimsch opened 6 years ago
2
Request following a Release message

#191 jimsch closed 6 years ago
3
Is the Custody option reflected in the PONG

#190 jimsch opened 6 years ago
1
Naming inconsistency for Block-wise Transfer option

#189 chrysn closed 6 years ago
2
WebSocket example: lacks CSMs

#188 chrysn closed 6 years ago
1
Re-wrote the introduction after a discussion with Jaime.

#187 hannestschofenig closed 7 years ago
0
Text proposal for BERT-related issues

#186 hannestschofenig closed 6 years ago
10
Rewrite of the introduction

#185 hannestschofenig closed 7 years ago
1
Clarify BERT / non-BERT block transfer behaviour when block size reduced "on the fly" for Block1 (PUT/POST) requests

#184 smolboarm closed 7 years ago
2
BERT block transfers could be easier to implement if reply will contain last _received_ sub-block

#183 smolboarm opened 7 years ago
4
Max-Message-Size should have defined lower limit value

#182 smolboarm opened 7 years ago
2
Signaling messages are only for reliable tranports

#181 brianraymor closed 7 years ago
0
Editorial feedback from Ben Campbell

#180 brianraymor closed 7 years ago
0
Reverts references to uri fragment identifiers

#179 brianraymor closed 7 years ago
0
Update RFC5226 to RFC8126

#178 brianraymor closed 7 years ago
0
Relationship between Max-Message-Size Capability Option and BERT underspecifed

#177 hannestschofenig closed 7 years ago
4
Parsing of Option numbers for Signaling messages

#176 hannestschofenig closed 7 years ago
4
Reverting to coap-tcp-tls-08

#175 brianraymor closed 7 years ago
0
Pong editorial

#174 brianraymor closed 7 years ago
0
editorial updates

#173 brianraymor closed 7 years ago
0
no state transfer for alternative-address connection

#172 brianraymor closed 7 years ago
0
iesgcomments1: close the next five issues

#171 cabo closed 7 years ago
2
Added proposed clarification

#170 brianraymor closed 7 years ago
0
updated acknowledgements

#169 brianraymor closed 7 years ago
0
Minor editorial cleanup

#168 brianraymor closed 7 years ago
0
Add a sentence that clarifies that the reliability is hop-by-hop

#167 cabo closed 7 years ago
0
First attempt at addressing IESG DISCUSSes (not yet all the COMMENTs)

#166 cabo closed 7 years ago
0
Do not use different URI schemes per transport

#165 cabo closed 7 years ago
0
Do not use Port 443 as the default for coaps+tcp

#164 cabo closed 7 years ago
1
Need to point to separate document for adding /.well-known to ws:/wss:

#163 cabo closed 7 years ago
1
Make it explicit that a PONG is a hop-by-hop verification of observation liveness only

#162 cabo closed 7 years ago
0
State explicitly how a UDP-to-TCP proxy would handle re-ordered incoming notifications

#161 cabo closed 7 years ago
2
Add up-front explanation of how Max-Message-Size, block transfer, and BERT fit together

#160 cabo closed 7 years ago
3
Simplify box notation so readers don't think there are different formats

#159 cabo closed 7 years ago
0
Editorial issues from Ben

#158 cabo closed 7 years ago
4
Unindent Figure 1

#157 cabo closed 7 years ago
0
Sentence in A.3 about using PING to check observation state may be misread...

#156 cabo closed 7 years ago
2
Is special-casing 5684 to work without ALPN worth potential operational confusion?

#155 cabo opened 7 years ago
11
Can't delay a PONG unless there is an option with delaying semantics in the PING

#154 cabo closed 7 years ago
0
Allow a peer to rely on the Block-wise Transfer Capability Option

#153 cabo closed 7 years ago
2
Make it more explicit that Signaling Messages are for the transports defined here, not for UDP or DTLS

#152 cabo closed 7 years ago
0
Ignoring as in “not processing”.

#151 cabo closed 7 years ago
0
Remove gratuitous speculation

#150 cabo closed 7 years ago
0
Be more explicit that connection handling is in the hand of the application

#149 cabo closed 7 years ago
2
Other editorial

#148 cabo closed 7 years ago
1
BERT capability is indicated by CSM Block & Max-Message-Size > 1152, not SZX

#147 cabo closed 7 years ago
5
The wording around Release (5.5.) can be read in different ways

#146 cabo closed 7 years ago
0
RFC 7925 is good for constrained-to-cloud, but not for the other use cases

#145 cabo closed 7 years ago
7
Alternative address doesn't add state to the new connection

#144 cabo closed 7 years ago
1