Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]> wrote: >> §8.1.1: >> >> > o The Uri-Path option is set to "j". >> >> COAP URIs are generally subject to BCP 190 restrictions, which would >> require the path to either be provisioned, discovered, or under the >> ".well-known" tree. The use of a reserved domain name here may change >> the rationale; but for the sake of not establishing a precedent for >> path squatting in CoAP, this document needs to clearly explain the >> rationale of why BCP 190 should not apply in this case. Alternately, >> the implied URI can be changed to something like >> "coap://6tisch.arpa/.well-known/j"
> Note also the parameter update exchange describe in Section 8.2, where
> the joined node is supposed to act as a CoAp server and expose the "/j"
> resource. The justification of the reserved domain name does not seem
> to apply to that case, which seems to suggest that .well-known will be
> needed.
I've added that the 6LR should locate this at the "6tisch.arpa" hostname.
This isolates the "/j" from any other uses of CoAP on the node.
If that's not acceptable, then we could live with .well-known, as the 6LR
has already joined, and it can negotiate for bandwidth, etc.
--
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
