Good to know.
Since the draft you mention has turned into a working group draft quite
some time already, I would be interested in input what would need to be
changed to obtain compatibility.

Gr??e, Carsten


Lankswert, Patrick wrote:
> Carsten,
> 
> Although the standards folks have taken guidance from 
> draft-bormann-core-links-json, the link format in JSON for OIC does not 
> adhere to the draft and not compatible. They have also made it the default 
> format of OIC.
> 
> Pat
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org [mailto:iotivity-dev-
>> bounces at lists.iotivity.org] On Behalf Of Carsten Bormann
>> Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2015 7:57 AM
>> To: "???(June Yong Young)"
>> Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org
>> Subject: Re: [dev] [oswg] [Pat, Uze] Groups - Action Item "CBOR Comms to
>> SWG" Closed
>>
>> Maybe I should mention at I'm at this very moment integrating the technical
>> content of draft-li-core-cbor-equivalents-00.txt into 
>> draft-ietf-core-links-json
>> -- that should enable the use of CBOR for link-format as well.
>>
>> One other aspect (since I don't have access to the spec):
>> Since you want to get link-format in JSON, is it written up that an 
>> appropriate
>> Accept Option needs to be present in the request?
>> (If it isn't, a server will have to send/ a client will get RFC 6690
>> link-format.)
>>
>> Gr??e, Carsten
>>
>>
>> ???(June Yong Young) wrote:
>>> Thiago,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I?d just like to confirm one thing.
>>>
>>> My understanding from your explanation is if there is someone to wants
>>> to use JSON,
>>>
>>> then it is very easy to add JSON parser and use it based on current
>>> IoTivity API implementation. Is this correct?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And Dwarka will check if the line in red in Core Spec will be changed
>>> in SWG.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 10.2 CoAP based Endpoint discovery 12
>>>
>>> The following is the description of CoAP based Endpoint discovery: 13
>>>
>>> a) All advertising or publishing OIC Devices shall join the ?All CoAP
>>> Nodes? multicast group, i.e. 14 224.0.1.187 for IPv4 and FF0X::FD for
>>> IPv6 and listen on the port ?5683?. 15
>>>
>>> a) The OIC Client that wants to discover resources shall first join
>>> the ?All CoAP Nodes? multicast 16 group. 17
>>>
>>> b) Then the OIC Client shall send a discovery request (GET request) to
>>> the multicast group ?All 18 CoAP Nodes? and port 5683 where the URI in
>>> the request shall be /oic/res. 19
>>>
>>> c) It shall use the Query mechanism (section 6.2.1) with key ?rt? and
>>> the wanted target as value 20 of rt 21
>>>
>>> d) When ?rt? Query key is omitted all OIC Devices shall respond to
>>> that request 22
>>>
>>> e) The considerations for handling multicast requests shall be as
>>> described in section 8 of 23 IETF RFC 7252 and section 4.1 in IETF RFC
>>> 6690 apply. 24
>>>
>>> *f) The OIC Devices that receive this request shall respond in JSON
>>> which is in conformance to 25 the JSON schema. In later versions of
>>> the specification other formats could be included (e.g., 26 XML/EXI)*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> June Yong Young
>>>
>>> OIC Open Sourece WG Project Planning & Requirement TG Chair
>>>
>>> IoTivity Release Function Lead
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Samsung Electronics Co.,Ltd.
>>>
>>> Software R&D Center, IoT Solution Lab. | Web & Convergence Team
>>>
>>> Principal Engineer
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> T: +82-31-301-6107, M: +82-10-9530-6107
>>>
>>> E-mail :juney at samsung.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Thiago Macieira [mailto:thiago.macieira at intel.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 9:16 AM
>>> To: Keane, Erich
>>> Cc: uzchoi at samsung.com; Lankswert, Patrick;
>>> iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org; dwarka.dayama at samsung.com;
>>> juney at samsung.com
>>> Subject: Re: [oswg] [Pat, Uze] Groups - Action Item "CBOR Comms to SWG"
>>> Closed
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday 30 June 2015 16:50:59 Keane, Erich wrote:
>>>
>>>> The result is a significantly simpler implementation for the
>>>> consumers
>>>> of the CSDK, since they don't have to worry about parsing the JSON,
>>>> just getting said data out of the OCPayload object-model.  There are
>>>> a
>>>> collection of helper methods (see ocpayload.h) to help get the data out.
>>>
>>>
>>> Note that this technically abstracts the representation and could
>>> allow, if we wanted to, to have other encodings besides CBOR.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There are no plans to add those encodings.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
>>>
>>>   Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> iotivity-dev mailing list
>>> iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org
>>> https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> iotivity-dev mailing list
>> iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org
>> https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev
> 
> 

Reply via email to