Hello Sheng, all I checked the new version against my review comments; and the following comment is still open – this is where Peter and me disagree.
> 9.1: the registered resource types (rt) would typically use some > hierarchy in naming with dots to denote hierarchy. See the current > entries in the registry: > https://www.iana.org/assignments/core-parameters/core-parameters.xhtml#rt-link-target-att-value > For constrained-BRSKI we have defined "brski", "brski.vs", "brski.rv", > etc. > > So to stay with existing conventions we could use such names. One > observation is that the Join Proxy in fact offers *all* BRSKI functions > that the Registrar offers, but then proxied. > > -> PvdS Here follows my rant. > There is no such thing as a convention for rt values. My point on above is that the convention is that which has been used so far and is not written down in any other RFC, draft, document, or policy apart from the mere convention – what people register into the CoRE parameters registry ‘rt’ attributes. All rt values so far have used the hierarchy core.* - CoRE WG types ace.* - ACE WG types brski.* - ANIMA WG types for BRSKI – not yet in the registry but specified in draft-constrained-voucher. oic.* - any types specified by OCF/OIC fa.* - any types specified by Fairhair Alliance Hence my request to comply to this convention, however undocumented it is today. Any system architect would agree to that seeing the current list. For the current draft it may be solved by choosing e.g. rt=brski.jp - for the Join Proxy’s resource type (to advertise join proxy support to Pledge) rt=brski.rjp - for the Registrar’s Join Proxy port (to advertise Registrar’s support for stateless join proxy protocol messages) I was hoping anyone else in the WG could also comment here to avoid a yes/no type discussion. I’ll also look at the other open comments soon. best regards Esko From: Anima <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Sheng Jiang Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2021 11:19 To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: [Anima] checking on advancing draft-ietf-anima-constrained-join-proxy Hi, all, This is a checking email to the WG collect the opinion whether draft-ietf-anima-constrained-join-proxy-05. Following our WGLC on -04 version, we asked the IoT directory review. Russ Housley provided it and the authors have reported that they addressed the received comments. If anyone has further comments, please feel free to raise with details and suggestions. I will start my duty as document shepherd next week. Cheers, Sheng
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
