Oops, sorry, yes, the service names use -, the . is the coap level discovery naming. No idea yet, whether there is an actual need for that difference (still getting up to speed with coap).
On Tue, May 03, 2022 at 03:54:01PM -0700, Stuart Cheshire wrote: > 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 -- --- [email protected] _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
