Em ter?a-feira, 11 de outubro de 2016, ?s 19:15:27 CEST, Gregg Reynolds escreveu: > > > Again, why? If a request is sent and it can be answered, it should be > > > answered. > > I think that glosses over the problem. whether a request "can be answered" > depends on the protocol spec. I think you mean sth closer to "if it MUST be > answered, then it should be answered." the RM "spec" is underspecified in > this respect, IMO. > > The problem I see ensuring that the responses include addresses that
I was thinking that if a query was received, communication is possible, and the query parameters match, it must answer. (sometimes, even if the parameters don't match) > > so here's a (possible) use-case: I want to draw a picture of my oic > > (inter-) network. I need to know which nodes are on which network, and > > what their roles are. > Anyway my main point is that it is a mistake to treat every oic node as ipso > facto a member of an internetwork. specifying oic internetworking is a > completely different issue. and please note that the current proposal is > not the only possible one. Why do you think we shouldn't do that? -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
