Hi Christian,
As a next step I made a Github PR to change the scheme name to the more
generic "jpy".
See https://github.com/anima-wg/constrained-join-proxy/pull/81/files
Hope this captures the outcome of our discussion.
I did additionally check that RFC 6690 allows 'rt' on non-CoAP target
resources, and that seems to be the case:
This specification is
applicable for use with Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)
[COAP], HTTP, or any other suitable web transfer protocol.
regards
Esko
On 21-7-2025 02:17, Christian Amsüss wrote:
Hello Esko,
On Sun, Jul 20, 2025 at 09:13:23PM +0200, Esko Dijk wrote:
In this case, the JP doesn't really need the anchor information. We would
preferably not send anything that's not needed.
[...]
This has somewhat higher complexity for the reader's minds [...]
yes -- the exercise of going through those is more for us to find a
common mindset of what the information conveyed by pointing out a jpy
URI is. The one that I think we're converging on is:
depend on the still experimental service.arpa thing, so a simpler
expression could be pretty much what you have (sans the coap part):
<jpy://[IP_R]:p_Rj>;rt=brski.jp
Small detail: we use brskip.rjp for advertising the JPY protocol endpoint.
Type "brski.jpy" could be an alternative name, but this might be confused
with "advertising the join proxy's service".
... whatever the precise points are (not sure if I looked it up wrong or
just mistyped) -- as long as there is a distinction between "this is a
CoAP resource to which BRSKI will be spoken" and "this is a point where
you can forward UDP traffic to and it will eventually find a BRSKI
resource"
Indeed there was a discussion some years ago, whether to use plain coap://
instead of the "JPY message". I don't recall why but it went the direction
of the JPY message format.
I figure it'll be in parts because DTLS handshakes might send multiple
packets that are hard to express in a CoAP response -- anyway, I didn't
mean to resume that discussion, merely to point out how thinking of the
resource as a UDP forwarding point works both with a jpy:// URI and with
a CoAP URI.
Thanks for taking the time to do the back-and-forth, looking forward to
this completing :-)
c
--
*IoTconsultancy.nl* | Email/Teams: [email protected] | +31 6
2385 8339
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
