tages).
Esko
-Original Message-
From: Michael Richardson
Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2022 08:07
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: Esko Dijk ; Carsten Bormann ;
anima@ietf.org; c...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Anima] [core] ANIMA constrained-join proxy revision to use CoAP
Brian E Carpenter wro
tire URI path + query components.)
Esko
-Original Message-
From: Michael Richardson
Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2022 08:08
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: Esko Dijk ; Carsten Bormann ;
anima@ietf.org; c...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Anima] [core] ANIMA constrained-join proxy revision to use C
{wasn't actually offlist}
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> By "URI resource name", do you mean "URI path component"? "Path" seems
> to be the official name for what follows the host in a URI, according
> to RFC3986.
I give up :-) whatever.
Uri-Path is the name of the CoAP option that I
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Two comments there:
> 1) It would be trivial to extend the definition of the BRSKI_RJP
objective by giving
> it a meaningful value field, such as a string defining the URI resource
name. Like:
> objective-value = text ; URI resource name
I a
Esko Dijk wrote:
> On the one hand if we decide to use CoAP for a particular function then
> we may expect implementers need to know CoAP as well and e.g. read RFC
> 7252. Including thinking about security issues of unsecured-CoAP. The
> benefit or re-use comes with that responsib
Message-
From: Michael Richardson
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2022 19:39
To: Carsten Bormann
Cc: Esko Dijk ; anima@ietf.org; c...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Anima] [core] ANIMA constrained-join proxy revision to use CoAP
Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> I'm not 100% sure if for a r
Carsten Bormann
Cc: Esko Dijk ; anima@ietf.org; c...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Anima] [core] ANIMA constrained-join proxy revision to use CoAP
Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> I'm not 100% sure if for a resource at the root (/), one Uri-Path
>> Option with 0 length is needed
mm-bis-07#section-3.5
> (in the context of CoAP group communication). No pictures there
> unfortunately.
Ok, will check in detail.
Thanks
Toerless
> Esko
>
> -Original Message-----
> From: Toerless Eckert
> Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2022 16:21
> To: Michael Richardson
>
Toerless Eckert wrote:
> I guess i do not understand CoAP well enough, but the wy it sounds to me,
> unclusion of the Uri option would be a security risk, because it would
> allow the Pledge to indicate to the constrained proxy which
registrar/proxy to
> connect to, right ?
No.
group communication). No pictures there unfortunately.
Esko
-Original Message-
From: Toerless Eckert
Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2022 16:21
To: Michael Richardson
Cc: Esko Dijk ; anima@ietf.org; c...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Anima] [core] ANIMA constrained-join proxy revision to use CoAP
Our pro
Our proxy is an application using CoAP. In that respect it is IMHO not a bad
idea to be explicit in what options are and what options are not to be included
in the CoAP headers, and not expect that implementers should/could figure this
all out by themselves. Especially, when there are options whose
f.org
Subject: Re: [Anima] [core] ANIMA constrained-join proxy revision to use CoAP
Toerless Eckert wrote:
> Can we make sure that the text does explain why the field is not
> inclueded, and explain that the packet MUST be rejected if it was
> included ?
Why should we re
Toerless Eckert wrote:
> Can we make sure that the text does explain why the field is not
> inclueded, and explain that the packet MUST be rejected if it was
> included ?
Why should we reject if it is included?
> Seems like:
> Field is not included and would cause rejection
day, October 27, 2022 19:58
To: Michael Richardson
Cc: Esko Dijk ; anima@ietf.org; c...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Anima] [core] ANIMA constrained-join proxy revision to use CoAP
Can we make sure that the text does explain why the field is not
inclueded, and explain that the packet MUST be rejected if it w
ent: Wednesday, October 26, 2022 19:39
To: Carsten Bormann
Cc: Esko Dijk ; anima@ietf.org; c...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Anima] [core] ANIMA constrained-join proxy revision to use CoAP
Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> I'm not 100% sure if for a resource at the root (/), one Uri-Path
On 2022-10-27, at 19:57, Toerless Eckert wrote:
>
> next hop
??
I thought we were in a thread about Uri-Path.
(If this is indeed a reverse proxy, that gets to choose the paths it supports;
I don’t know what paths the actual registrar would use — sorry for not
following all the discussion here
Can we make sure that the text does explain why the field is not
inclueded, and explain that the packet MUST be rejected if it was included ?
Seems like:
Field is not included and would cause rejection of the packet if it was
present, because it is inappropriate for the initiator to choose the ne
> On 2022-10-26, at 19:39, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> So, no Uri-Path option is equivalent to /?
Actually, to
coap://foo
and
coap://foo/
For contrast, note that
coap://foo?
and the equivalent
coap://foo/?
actually have a single empty Uri-Query Option, but
Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> I'm not 100% sure if for a resource at the root (/), one Uri-Path
>> Option with 0 length is needed or if 0 Uri-Path Options can be used.
>> Or if both methods would be valid.
> That is a well-known idiosyncracy in the URI format.
> Have a look at:
Esko Dijk wrote:
> Yes, the assumption is still that a CoAP request made to the root
> resource (/) is valid and can be encoded by including 0 Uri-Path
> Options.
Well, the word from the Oct.12 meeting was that we didn't need it.
> Since the proposed CoAP message does not contai
On 2022-10-26, at 16:57, Esko Dijk wrote:
>
> I'm not 100% sure if for a resource at the root (/), one Uri-Path Option with
> 0 length is needed or if 0 Uri-Path Options can be used. Or if both methods
> would be valid.
That is a well-known idiosyncracy in the URI format.
Have a look at:
htt
valid.
Esko
-Original Message-
From: Michael Richardson
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2022 16:53
To: Esko Dijk ; anima@ietf.org; c...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Anima] [core] ANIMA constrained-join proxy revision to use CoAP
Esko Dijk wrote:
>> The Proxy-Scheme option is set to &q
Esko Dijk wrote:
>> The Proxy-Scheme option is set to "coap". Do I even need this?
> I don't think we can use the Proxy-Scheme (or the Proxy-Uri) Option
If we don't need it, then GREAT, that's six bytes we save.
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consultin
Hi Michael,
> The Proxy-Scheme option is set to "coap".
> Do I even need this?
I don't think we can use the Proxy-Scheme (or the Proxy-Uri) Option here. The
reason is that it is meant for a CoAP forward-proxy, that is a proxy that
receives a CoAP request and creates another fresh/new CoAP requ
24 matches
Mail list logo
