Can we make sure that the text does explain why the field is not
inclueded, and explain that the packet MUST be rejected if it was included ?
Seems like:
Field is not included and would cause rejection of the packet if it was
present, because it is inappropriate for the initiator to choose the next hop
after the proxy not only because the Pledge would not know it, but because it is
also not appropriate for security purposes for the Pledge to choose it.
Do i correctly understand this ?
Cheers
Toerless
On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 07:38:12PM +0200, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> Esko Dijk <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Yes, the assumption is still that a CoAP request made to the root
> > resource (/) is valid and can be encoded by including 0 Uri-Path
> > Options.
>
> Well, the word from the Oct.12 meeting was that we didn't need it.
>
> > Since the proposed CoAP message does not contain any Uri-Path
> > option, it should be directed to the root resource. There could also be
> > cases where the Registrar would configure another resource (e.g. /j or
> > /join or whatever) and in such case a Uri-Path option would be needed.
>
> Okay, but I'd like to not do that :-)
>
> > I'm not 100% sure if for a resource at the root (/), one Uri-Path
> > Option with 0 length is needed or if 0 Uri-Path Options can be used.
> > Or if both methods would be valid.
>
> I'm hoping that Carsten or Christian will express an opinion.
>
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
> -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
--
---
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
