Hi Michael,
thanks for a clear answer.
I think the Registrar/JCE will need to support three protocols:
1) a push protocol over CoAP.
2) a pull protocol (RFC7030/EST).
3) a protocol to talk to the MASA (TBD)
As discussed earlier, having a push/pull agnostic protocol would be
nice. (and probably feasible)
As stated earlier, I think that discovery and which node starts the
bootstrap protocol (BRSKI) is very much installation/technology
dependent, and should be done in another document.
My intention was to reduce the coding effort of the registrar by making
1) and 2) as similar as can be hoped for;
while payload considerations are of secondary importance.
My hope being that a manufacturer will deliver a registrar box
supporting both coap and http versions.
When the consensus is that adding coap is already such an extra effort
that code sharing between http and coap versions does not alleviate the
effort,
then any solution for coap that concentrates on payload reduction is
fine by me.
Peter
_______________________________________________
6tisch mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
