Esko Dijk <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, the assumption is still that a CoAP request made to the root > resource (/) is valid and can be encoded by including 0 Uri-Path > Options.
Well, the word from the Oct.12 meeting was that we didn't need it.
> Since the proposed CoAP message does not contain any Uri-Path
> option, it should be directed to the root resource. There could also be
> cases where the Registrar would configure another resource (e.g. /j or
> /join or whatever) and in such case a Uri-Path option would be needed.
Okay, but I'd like to not do that :-)
> I'm not 100% sure if for a resource at the root (/), one Uri-Path
> Option with 0 length is needed or if 0 Uri-Path Options can be used.
> Or if both methods would be valid.
I'm hoping that Carsten or Christian will express an opinion.
--
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
