On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 3:44 AM, Kis, Zoltan <zoltan.kis at intel.com> wrote:
> Hello, > > Thank you for the responses so far. > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 6:49 AM, Dwarkaprasad Dayama < > dwarka.dayama at samsung.com> wrote: > >> This requirement has been handled in form of observable /oic/res and it >> is part of OCF 1.0. >> >> /oic/ad was removed from Spec because it was underspecified and there was >> better way to do same using /oic/res and avoiding new resource creation. >> > > Thank you, that clarifies. Observing /oic/res will give client apps > notifications when resources appear and disappear. > > Also, the CoAP way Mats mentioned solves this case: if the observing > client stack gets a retrieve response with a 4.04 error, the client app > will know it has to re-discover. However, I like more the solution with > observing /oic/res, since clients don't need to rediscover. > > I also fully agree with Thiago Macieira that a resource directory should > be mandatory in an OCF network. > > I'm not sure what Thiago's proposal is but it seems to me that network structure is clearly beyond the scope of a protocol specification. A Resource Directory is an optimization; some networks need it, some don't; it's not for the protocol to say. For example, a single client talking to a single server is a network that obviously does not need an RD. -Gregg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.iotivity.org/pipermail/iotivity-dev/attachments/20161130/d02f9551/attachment.html>
