On 3 May 2022, at 12:39, Toerless Eckert <[email protected]> wrote: > The service name would not be CoAP, but e.g.: brski.rjp (service point for > boostrapping of > key infras). The TXT proto= key would need to be a list of 1 or more protocol > variations, > if those protocol variations happen to be able to (or need to) operate across > the same > UDP or TCP port - which is something that could happen for protocols > operating on top > of COAP or HTTP. For example proto=est-coap,cmp-coap, if we have two coap > protocols, such as > one based on EST (rfc7030), and one based on CMP, both able to operate across > the same > COAP (UDP) port. Service is the same, just encoding of transactions and > data-structures > differs. > > Would that be appropriate ?
You can’t have a dot in the service name, but otherwise this looks good. Stuart Cheshire _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
