On Oct 12, 2016 2:18 AM, "Thiago Macieira" <thiago.macieira at intel.com>
wrote:
>
> 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?
>
Principle of Parsimony, mainly. if I'm not doing internetworking, then I
want zero internetworking overhead. every byte counts. ;)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.iotivity.org/pipermail/iotivity-dev/attachments/20161012/f0b30d42/attachment.html>
