Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote: >> I'm fixing it at: >> https://github.com/anima-wg/constrained-join-proxy/pull/20 >> Brian, in RFC8995, we leave "objective-value" empty, while this document >> wants to set it to "BRSKI_JP", and I don't think that does anything useful.
> That's a design choice you're free to make, of course.
I now realize that probably we need to use this value in the AN_Registrar
objective to name the different protocols.
We have, so far:
1) Classic RFC8995, HTTPS/TLS/IP connectivity.
2) Constrained-voucher, CoAP/DTLS/UDP/IP connectivity (stateful proxy)
3) Constrained-voucher, CoAP/DTLS/CBOR/UDP/IP connectivity (stateless proxy)
4) 6tisch RFC9032, OSCORE/CoAP/UDP/IP with stateful proxy
5) 6tisch RFC9032, OSCORE/CoAP/UDP/IP using CoAP extended token (RFC8974) for
stateless proxy
In theory, if the CoAP server is properly written, (4) and (5) ought to be
identical as the extended token would always be returned.
2,3,4,5 are all over UDP.
Should constrained-join-proxy establish an IANA Registry for the
objective-value then?
I was mistaken when I wrote before that objective-value could be empty.
I think that we actually need to fill them all in.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
