Simply, 'yes'.
> -----Original Message----- > From: iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org [mailto:iotivity-dev- > bounces at lists.iotivity.org] On Behalf Of Thiago Macieira > Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 12:28 PM > To: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org > Cc: oswg at openinterconnect.org > Subject: Re: [dev] [oswg] Re: [Group Action Set discussion] RE: [Request to > Check - by 18:00 on Mar.3rd in PST] Draft Action Item (with Deadline and > Owner) after OSWG F2F Meeting in Santa Clara > > On Monday 09 March 2015 09:17:26 Lankswert, Patrick wrote: > > Uze, > > > > I would suggest starting with the CBOR RFC > > (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7049). The objectives section provides > > a nice introduction to all of Thiago's points. > > Again, I need to ask: are we talking about API or are we talking about > transmitting that on the wire? Or both? > > If we're talking about the wire, then I'd say we should encode the request in > an array or object according to what we're already encoding on the wire. If > we're sending JSON on the wire, then we use JSON. If we switch to CBOR, > then we send CBOR. Just as long as we don't mix. > > If we're talking about API, then neither JSON nor CBOR are a good idea. That > should just be a structured type or more parameters in the function call. > > -- > Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com > Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 7198 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.iotivity.org/pipermail/iotivity-dev/attachments/20150309/23f2c961/attachment.p7s>
