On Thu, Mar 15, 2018, 5:14 PM Nash, George <[email protected]> wrote:
> This is my attempt to describe the difference between piid and pi. (UUID > is defined by RFC-4122) > > piid (Protocol Independent ID) - is intended as an identifier that is > independent of the piid is required to be a UUID. Typo? Should be "as a device id that is independent of the protocol..."? Which implies that a protocol-dependent device ID is possible or at least allowed. If not, then since di is already a uuid, what is the point of a piid? Is this sloppy or far-sighted? Why would we want protocol-dependent dis? It is intended to detect if multiple instances of the same device has > been discovered. One use case you have device `A` discovered by two > different bridges. So your client it told by two different bridges that > each bridge has a device. The client can look at the `piid` for the device > from each bridge and it can conclude that both are the same device because > they have the same `piid` even though the client is getting reports of the > device twice over two different connections. The `piid` could be used to > tell if you have discovered the same device over different protocols. For > example TCP and Bluetooth. > Why isn't the di uuid sufficient for that? Puzzled, Gregg
_______________________________________________ iotivity-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev
