Em quarta-feira, 12 de outubro de 2016, ?s 15:14:34 CEST, Gregg Reynolds escreveu: > > 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. ;)
I'm going to repeat what I said above: if a device received a multicast query whose parameters match resources this current device knows about, it should reply. If the current device is not supposed to reply, then the sender needs to send query parameters that are stricter and cause a match to fail. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
