Panos Kampanakis (pkampana) <pkamp...@cisco.com> wrote:
>> But can't the client just be configured out-of-band with the URIs
directly?
> That is right. We could mandate only .well-known URIs. But I think we
> ought to let a deployment use non-default URIs. For example some
> usecase might not want to send the .well-known in the URI to save
> transmission bytes and thus use a custom short URI. If the URI change
> takes place after deployment client will find that out with a
> discovery. Similarly, a usecase might initially not support one of the
> optional requests like server-side keygen. If the server adds support
> sometime in the future, the client could find out using discovery. And
> we ought to let the client be able to recover in case the well-known
> request URI fails for some reason and he wants to see what is supported
> by the server.That is why we thought it is still worth to keep the
> .well-known URIs along with the discovery.
also, EST-COAP is a building block for draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher
(containing constrained BRSKI) so preconfiguration won't work. While
constrained BRSKI can operate on .well-known the LDevID renewal might occur
with a different server, and so discovery might be worthwhile.
There are two reasons for doing the resource discovery:
1) to get a multicast response when looking for a registrar.
2) to get a shorter name to save some bytes.
I think that (2) contributes negatively to code-complexity, and so if not
for (1), I'd prefer to live on /.well-known only. But, I don't object
to having shorter URLs available for those that want to spend the code.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
