Esko Dijk <[email protected]> wrote: > I created a Github issue for constrained-voucher to capture the outcome > of this discussion: > https://github.com/anima-wg/constrained-voucher/issues/51
Thank you.
> (Reminder: There are also a couple of more open issues. I can work on
> these too and have already contacted Peter about these.)
I think that we can finally start digging these items out of the ditch
created by ACP and BRSKI stalling up the process.
In constrained-voucher/brski, there is a CoAP RD call:
REQ: GET /.well-known/core?rt=ace.est*
RES: 2.05 Content
</est>; rt="ace.est"
</est/rv>; rt="ace.est/rv";ct=TBD2 TBD3
</est/vs>; rt="ace.est/vs";ct=50 60
</est/es>; rt="ace.est/es";ct=50 60
</est/ra>; rt="ace.est/ra";ct=TBD2 TBD3
I don't really know how to ask for multiple things.
Clearly, we should be asking for "ace.brski" now?
Do we have to change our allocation somewhere?
I don't see any IANA activity around rt=ace.est/rv, unless it's section 9.1?
which regisgters things, but I don't understand why it asks for ranges,
because I have no idea where those *numbers* would go.
I probably just don't know enough about this stuff.
I think that RFC6690 should probably be a normative reference.
I guess that we would have gotten all of the end points associated with
draft-ietf-ace-coaps-est when we above asked for ace.est.
RFC6690, section 4.1 [
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6690.html#section-4.1 ]
does not seem to permit two or three things to be returned, just wildcards.
What would happen if, when asked for rt=anima.brski, that it returned the
entries for ace.est and/or blah.cmp?
Is it late enough that we could just switch to CoRAL?
Do I even understand what means.
--
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
