> That's good to hear, and I guess that was one reason to make GRASP treat CBOR > as its "native language". > And as draft-eckert-anima-grasp-dnssd shows, once you represent DNS info in a > CBOR (or JSON) style it > becomes very straightforward to parse. I'm not sure that these advantages are > widely understood outside ANIMA.
There's some work and discussion in the CBOR WG on this. The focus there is mostly on compactness, not necessarily on ease of parsing. And no specific focus on DNS-SD services. See https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-lenders-dns-cbor-06 I think draft-eckert-anima-grasp-dnssd is more optimized (in terms of size/simplicity) to the use case of DNS-SD service info, while the above draft focuses on generic DNS queries/answers. Esko -----Original Message----- From: Anima <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2023 20:12 To: Michael Richardson <[email protected]>; Toerless Eckert <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Anima] brski-discovery vs constrained BRSKI (was: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima-constrained-join-proxy-15.txt / draft-eckert-anima-brski-discovery-01 ) On 24-Nov-23 04:14, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Toerless Eckert <[email protected]> wrote: > > I don't see a reason why GRASP should not work well on even further > > constrained devices. > > I personally found GRASP way easier to implement in a constrained fashion > than mDNS. That's good to hear, and I guess that was one reason to make GRASP treat CBOR as its "native language". And as draft-eckert-anima-grasp-dnssd shows, once you represent DNS info in a CBOR (or JSON) style it becomes very straightforward to parse. I'm not sure that these advantages are widely understood outside ANIMA. Brian _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
