On Mar 8, 2012, at 5:55 AM, Zach Shelby wrote: >> >> Major issues: >> What is the registration / collision avoidance strategy for resource type >> (rt) and interface description (if) values? They are both defined as opaque >> strings which can happen to be URIs. So there seems to be potential for >> collision. > > There is definitely a possibility for collision for those two attributes, > especially as there will be a mix of specifications that define specific > values to be used, and developers using their own values. Currently while > those are being defined in CoRE drafts we can avoid collisions, but when > other WGs or SDOs start defining them... > > We have deliberated on the idea of defining registries for rt= and if= > values, but it has not been clear if that should be done in this document. > Recently several CoRE drafts have been written that do specify well-known > values for those fields, so it starts to become obvious that those registries > would be useful. If I understand right, your recommendation would be that we > define those registries in the IANA section of this document? I would be in > favor of doing that.
Where are we on resolving topic? This is closely linked with the registry proposed in senml. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
