On 11/1/19 4:43 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
Adam Roach via Datatracker <[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
Yes, we think that it does.
The Host: is "6tisch.arpa", so we think that we are the owner of the URI, as
per BCP190 section 1, paragraph 3:
} Because the owner of the URI (as defined in [webarch]
} Section 2.2.2.1) is choosing to use the server or the application,
} this can be seen as reasonable delegation of authority.
How/where should we reference this?
Wherever you prefer. If I were editing the document, I would put it as
an indented note paragraph directly under the bulleted list in Section
8.1.1; but I defer to your judgement if you think it works better
somewhere else.
> 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"
We feel that those 11 bytes are not needed. We already didn't like the
6tisch.arpa part....
Understood. Ben pointed out something interesting that I didn't catch --
the text in Section 8.2.1 doesn't indicate what the "Uri-Host" value
should be for parameter update exchange, and I can't quite figure out
the answer myself. If it's supposed to be "6tisch.arpa", please add a
bullet saying as much. If it's not "6tisch.arpa," then the URI ownership
rationale above doesn't apply, and the path handling will need to change.
/a
_______________________________________________
6tisch mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
