Dear implementers Thanks for responding to my call. I would like to ask you a few questions to assess the statements in draft-ietf-lwig-coap and hopefully identify a few gaps in the guidance. The following questions resemble the draft structure:
1. Message Processing Which approach did you choose and why, on-the-fly processing (keeping header fields and options encoded in local memory) or internal data structure (a native struct/object that is serialized on send)? It would be important to add the context of your implementation and decision: is it optimized for memory size, throughput, or usability? Is there a third approach or an alternative optimization goal? 2. Duplicate Rejection Have you implemented full duplicate rejection with timers? Or do you rely on idempotency and application-specific handling of duplicates? Again the context of your implementation and decision is interesting here. 3. Token Usage There has been continuous confusion about token usage on the mailing list and during interop events (e.g., in combination with blockwise transfers). Is there something you consider underspecified in RFC7252 or hard to get right (e.g., coping with reboots)? 4. Programming Model Did you use a model for embedded implementations that is not event-driven? Which is it and why did you choose it? Is the listing of different resource types and their specific requirements useful to you? 5. Optimizations Is the text in Section 3 comprehensible? Do you have further optimizations that you want to share? 6. Alternative Configurations Did you tweak any of the transmission parameters in your implementation? Do you use IPv4 and did you run into problems when deploying your implementations? We would really appreciate your input on this. I also might come up with further questions for a future revision of the draft. Best regards Matthias
_______________________________________________ Lwip mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
