Here's the full spec for piid: A unique and immutable Device identifier. A Client can detect that a single > Device supports multiple communication protocols if it discovers that the > Device uses a single Protocol Independent ID value for all the protocols it > supports.
I'm not sure it answers the question. At least it should be clear pi and di are different things, one "platform" may host many "devices" (doesn't sound like that was in question anyway). I'm left with some of the same questions - Instead of this clunky description, oic.wk.res contains an mpro field which lists supported protocols. Why would you look elsewhere? Or are these different layer protocols? On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 12:54 PM, Gregg Reynolds <d...@mobileink.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018, 5:14 PM Nash, George <george.n...@intel.com> wrote: > >> This is my attempt to describe the difference between piid and pi. (UUID >> is defined by RFC-4122) >> >> piid (Protocol Independent ID) - is intended as an identifier that is >> independent of the piid is required to be a UUID. > > > Typo? Should be "as a device id that is independent of the protocol..."? > > Which implies that a protocol-dependent device ID is possible or at least > allowed. If not, then since di is already a uuid, what is the point of a > piid? > > Is this sloppy or far-sighted? Why would we want protocol-dependent dis? > > It is intended to detect if multiple instances of the same device has >> been discovered. One use case you have device `A` discovered by two >> different bridges. So your client it told by two different bridges that >> each bridge has a device. The client can look at the `piid` for the device >> from each bridge and it can conclude that both are the same device because >> they have the same `piid` even though the client is getting reports of the >> device twice over two different connections. The `piid` could be used to >> tell if you have discovered the same device over different protocols. For >> example TCP and Bluetooth. >> > > Why isn't the di uuid sufficient for that? > > Puzzled, > > Gregg > > _______________________________________________ > iotivity-dev mailing list > iotivity-dev@lists.iotivity.org > https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev > >
_______________________________________________ iotivity-dev mailing list iotivity-dev@lists.iotivity.org https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev
