Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, that idea came up a lot already. The reason we haven’t acted on > that is that higher option numbers sort later, so there is some work to > be done to get the components of the URI in order. Apart from that: > Uri-Patj(".well-known”) as a CoAP Option would save 10+ bytes on each > use, so indeed let’s go ahead and do that. If support for this new > critical option is required for some interesting protocol, it might get > deployment. Unfortunately, you won’t be able to do this casually in > other contexts.
If Esko and I write an I-D this week, can we get it through fast enough that we aren't holding up cBRSKI too much? That probably means getting it to the IESG by IETF124. -- Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- *I*LIKE*TRAINS*
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
