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
6tisch@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch

Reply via email to