> BTW, as these messages are not accompanied by a coap header , it is may be > better to completely forget about content formats.
For the latter approach see my recent email: leaving out the not-that-useful content-format numbers saves 4 bytes in the resulting CBOR. Open question is now: when/why would including such numbers be useful and worth the bytes? Given that the current CBOR structure is not sent over CoAP but over UDP. (For the over-CoAP option see my very first email, option B) – this can work as well but uses even more bytes, for the CoAP header…). Esko From: Peter van der Stok <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 14:22 To: Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> Cc: Esko Dijk <[email protected]>; [email protected]; peter van der Stok <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Anima] draft-vanderstok-anima-constrained-join-proxy-04: how can J know the content-format cf Yes, why not. For the moment, in the invisible version 1, two content-formats are transported: 1) application cbor describing the header of the JPY message 2) application cbor, a cbor byte string containing the DTLS This clearly sits between two approaches. 1) replace with application/cbor for the whole or 2) remove the cbor byte string from the DTLS payload BTW, as these messages are not accompanied by a coap header , it is may be better to completely forget about content formats. Additional suggestions are really welcome. Peter Carsten Bormann schreef op 2020-11-30 14:12: On 2020-11-30, at 14:01, Esko Dijk <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: without using core-multipart Why not? Grüße, Carsten
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
