Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote: > I realised there was a gap in the -00 draft, which I've fixed by > inventing a new IANA registry. Briefly, when discovering a new agent, > you need to know what "transport" protocol it talks. That isn't as > simple as TCP vs UDP, as the original GRASP definitions assumed. Most
True!
> protocols of interest are *above* the traditional transport layer and
> are not listed in basic IANA protocol registry. Apart from the SDP
> parameters registry [1], there doesn't seem to be a registry for
> this. SOo of course I invented one.
I feel like maybe DELEG might have similiar issue as it's transport-security
option moves forward: draft-hoffman-deleg-secure-transports-00 section 2.1,
section 4.2
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-carpenter-anima-grasp-rendezvous-01
You've used values >256.
CBOR won't restrict you to just integers. You could strings, or even complex
objects like an array, like for instance:
[{TCP,UDP},{CoAP,HTTP,HTTPS,OSCORE,EDHOC}]
(as the pattern: [TCP,HTTPS] being a single value)
I know we struggled with something similiar as the BRSKI transports
multiplied. Where did that text go... ah.. into brski-discovery, section
3.5.2.2. We used/adapted the last parameter of the objective, the
objective-value, to disambiguate. I'm not entirely happy with this.
I would adapt your work here into brski-discovery.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =- *I*LIKE*TRAINS*
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
