HI Esko,
The PR of MCR has been applied to main,
meaning that we now use the rt-values brski.jp and brski.rjp.
Greetings,
Peter
Esko Dijk schreef op 2021-11-29 11:17:
Apart from the discussion whether the (current) hierarchical naming
convention is to be used, or any names without hierarchy (because it is
allowed for rt), there is an additional consideration to make.
If a Pledge wants to use CoAP discovery to discover one of a
Constrained Join Proxy or Registrar on the link, because typically it
would be able to contact both (DTLS connection & messages are
identical), it would help very much if it only has to do a single
discovery action for both. And not 2 separate discovery actions.
If the Pledge discovers for resources with rt=brski* , this is useful
as it will find resource "rt=brski" indicating a Registrar and also
resources "rt=brski.jp" indicating a Constrained Join Proxy. I can pick
either one it finds. If both are found it may prefer the Registrar
directly (rt=brski).
In my view this naming choice (brski.*) thus makes things more
efficient and consistent; it is more than just a name.
Regards
Esko
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Richardson <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2021 18:49
To: Esko Dijk <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Cc: Sheng Jiang <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Peter van der
Stok <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Anima] checking on advancing
draft-ietf-anima-constrained-join-proxy / 'rt' naming
Esko Dijk <[email protected]> wrote:
I checked the new version against my review comments; and the
following
comment is still open - this is where Peter and me disagree.
understood.
I have no real opinion.
core.* - CoRE WG types
ace.* - ACE WG types
brski.* - ANIMA WG types for BRSKI - not yet in the registry but
specified in
draft-constrained-voucher.
oic.* - any types specified by OCF/OIC
fa.* - any types specified by Fairhair Alliance
Hence my request to comply to this convention, however undocumented it
is today. Any system architect would agree to that seeing the current
list.
Can we ask core@ to review and comment then?
original message:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/s9yU6LPnV8pE17Ws2xjH2f0mrO0/
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
