I do prefer Option 2 - after all, I proposed it. However I admit there is no harm in keeping the regular JSON-RPC response around, as per Draft 06 - even though it is semantically empty.
If anyone else is strongly in favor of "Option 2", please speak up, as I believe Vince is going to make an editorial call on this one soon. Dan Harasty From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Don Joslyn Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 10:36 AM To: Vincent Chen; Michael Head Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [paws] Spectrum_use_notify as pure notification I vote for option #1, keep it the way it is currently defined in Draft 06. The main justification is the current notification message flow defined in Draft 06 can be easily extended to include additional parameters in the reply sent back to the radio. If we change it to a pure JSON notification, then we lose this capability. Thanks, Don From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Vincent Chen Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 12:33 PM To: Michael Head Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [paws] Spectrum_use_notify as pure notification I suppose it does not make sense to change the spec to using JSON-RPC notification, then allow for deviation. So, could we see if there is a consensus for one of the following? Option 1: No change to Draft 06: notifySpectrumUse is a JSON-RPC request, with a response that contains only the message type and version: { "jsonrpc": "2.0", "result": { "type": "SPECTRUM_USE_RESP", "version": "1.0" }, "id": "xxxxxxx" } Option 2: Change notifySpectrumUse to be a pure JSON-RPC notification that will not have a JSON-RPC response (i.e., empty HTTP response body). Thanks. -vince On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Michael Head <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: If spectrum_use_notify is a pure JSON-RPC notification, this could be a problem for our implementation. We can't easily guarantee that the there would be no JSON-RPC response body for this method, but I believe JSON-RPC requires this for notification calls. If clients would ignore any body included in the response, then it would be fine for us, but I suppose the specification would need to make special note of that deviation from the JSON-RPC spec. Thanks, -- mike -- ---------------------------------- Michael R Head <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> http://www.cs.binghamton.edu/~mike +1-201-BLISTER _______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws -- -vince
_______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
