Michael Behringer (mbehring) <[email protected]> wrote: > My view: - We use GRASP to signal which Intent version we have, and > where the latest version can be fetched from, and with which method / > protocol. - We use that protocol to actually get the Intent file.
I agree that this is a better way to do things.
I think that an Intent to get the ACP working ought be less than a few KB.
> This is the most flexible and extensible model, IMHO.
> So, from my point, no problem with a maximum message size of 2048
> bytes, as long as we send the Intent file separately :-)
RFC6920 defines ni:, which might prove useful.
Naming Things with Hashes
Abstract
This document defines a set of ways to identify a thing (a digital
object in this case) using the output from a hash function. It
specifies a new URI scheme for this purpose, a way to map these to
HTTP URLs, and binary and human-speakable formats for these names.
The various formats are designed to support, but not require, a
strong link to the referenced object, such that the referenced object
may be authenticated to the same degree as the reference to it. The
reason for this work is to standardise current uses of hash outputs
in URLs and to support new information-centric applications and other
uses of hash outputs in protocols.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
