Esko Dijk <[email protected]> wrote: > Indeed, and the ace-coap-est examples use port 61616 mostly. The > discovery Link Format is quite inefficient when returning results on > *different* endpoints. Example:
> REQ: GET coap://[2001:db8::2:1]/.well-known/core?rt=ace.est
> RES: 2.05 Content
> <coaps://hostcanhavealongname.example.com:61616/est>;rt="ace.est"
I understand.
> Although in above case the server could shorten the response payload by
> returning its IP address ( <coaps://
> [2001:db8::2:1]:61616/est>;rt="ace.est"). But still it’s a waste of
> bytes.
It could have multiple addresses!!!
I've seen it just return </est>, but I guess if you want to return the
port number, you have to return the hostname... <:61616/est> won't do?
> The current example in Section 5 of ace-coap-est is problematic,
> because discovery is on port 5683 and the hosted EST endpoint is on the
> secure port 5684. So the following won’t work according to RFC 7252 /
So I've assumed that discovery happens on 5684, under DTLS.
You are suggesting that we need to run an unencrypted CoAP to offer the
discovery option as well.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Ace mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
