On 3 May 2022, at 11:18, Toerless Eckert <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Joe, for reconfirming > > Couldn't find any of those service names you listed to point to an RFC, so > i gave up trying to find documentation of the exact formatting. > > If a single service instance (IP-addr/port) can support let's say more > than one protocol (variation), then i guess we have to come up with > our own encoding proposal, as there is no standard ?! > > eg: proto=variation1,variation2,... > > (catenate protocols with ",").
Maybe follow the example set by IPP, where it lists supported print description languages: pdl=application/octet-stream,application/pdf,application/postscript,image/jpeg,image/png,image/urf See <http://www.dns-sd.org/ServerStaticSetup.html#AirPrint> > I guess this could happen when we come up with different > protocols all running on top of coap (given how the service instance > port number is only bound to the coap layer). That would be a bad design. The service type says what a service does, not what engineering decisions were made in its design. Advertising a “CoAP” service makes as much sense as advertising a service type called “ascii” or “utf-8” or “xml” just because the protocol happens to use those things. See <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6763#section-7> Particularly read the part that says, “Wise selection of a Service Name is important...” Stuart Cheshire _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
