On Apr 18, 2012, at 9:40 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote: > > 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.
Yes, it is being resolved in Ticket #195. I am adding both registries following the same style as the relation registry in RFC5988. http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/core/trac/ticket/195 The only action point right now is for me to update the draft closing this and the other tickets. Zach -- Zach Shelby, Chief Nerd, Sensinode Ltd. http://www.sensinode.com http://zachshelby.org - My blog "On the Internet of Things" http://6lowpan.net - My book "6LoWPAN: The Wireless Embedded Internet" Mobile: +358 40 7796297 _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
