Hello, Thanks for your response.
>It is actually possible to use the same token, as the token has been >retired by the response to the previous request ? so it is not wrong to >reuse it. But then this token reuse does nothing that would somehow link >the second request to the first. Well, that would be true except in the case where a server sends a notification, block-wise, in response to an OBSERVE request because in that instance the token is not retired until the observation has terminated. This detail is in fact explicitly covered in RFC 7959 under section 3.4 "Combining Observe and Block2? under figure 12 with the text "Note that the choice of token 0xfc in this example is arbitrary; tokens are just shown in this example to illustrate that the requests for additional blocks cannot make use of the token of the Observation relationship." So, it might be better to generate a new token for each request anyway. > >> ii) without the uri_path of the resource being requested. >> I believe this is incorrect. > >Now that is indeed incorrect ? this goes to a different resource then >(the root resource coap://.../). Right. It needs to be fixed. Thanks, -Kishen. - Kishen Maloor Intel Open Source Technology Center
