Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> wrote: >> Malisa, CORE has a document "tomorrow" (Tuesday) on their schedule: >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hartke-core-pending-01 >> >> This would let the JRC return a message Pending, if it felt that the network >> was too congested, and lets it say when the pledge should come back.
> 5.03 is the response code for that.
> 7252 says:
> 5.9.3.4. 5.03 Service Unavailable
Thank you for educating me...
> This Response Code is like HTTP 503 "Service Unavailable" but uses
> the Max-Age Option in place of the "Retry-After" header field to
> indicate the number of seconds after which to retry.
Ah, I think that we actually can use both in different situations!
In the situation where we have congestion, and we want them to retry, I guess
5.03 is correct.
In the situation where we are missing the PSK to complete the minimal-security,
or in the zerotouch situation where we have to contact the MASA (and/or there
might be human intervention to accept), then 2.__ pending might be more
instructive.
> Pending is for a different situation: The request was accepted, but
> needs more work before it can return its result.
"more work", I interpret to include, "more crypto"?
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
