Toerless Eckert <[email protected]> wrote: > Maybe here is a good logic:
> The short document would not need to be an Update as long as we do not
> want to eliminate the old /est URLs.
okay, then let's not make the change at all, it's mostly cosmetic.
> Aliasing should be easy enough.
Aliasing on the server sides (MASA, Registrar) is trivial.
But, the alias will have to remain for all time.
Aliasing on the client, which has to make a decision and possibly a discovery
is non-trivial. This is why I want to do this *NOW*, or not at all.
In addition, it's clear that we need a registry here!
There are four questions:
1) do we really need to rename anything?
2) do we really need to Link Discovery for the HTTP version? (CoAP version
already does it in ace-coaps-est)
3) is this a rename or an alias?
4) do we want to do this in (a) BRSKI base document, (b) short document, (c)
BRSKI-AE document.
My answers:
1) No, I don't want to rename anything. Let BRSKI-AE establish a new registry.
2) I don't want to Link Discovery, and I think it's harmful if BRSKI-AE
proposes this rather than it being in the base document.
3) I see an alias as a waste of time. It's either a rename, or don't do it.
4) If we want to do this, then do it in the base document.
Yes, with *ALL* the delay risk that Brian Carpenter mention.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
