On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Brian E Carpenter < [email protected]> wrote:
> On 02/04/2014 20:49, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: > > >> not reinvent the wheel. If RESTCONF can be mapped well to CoAP and > >> constrained devices, this may be an interesting option. > > Please explain what you mean by mapping RESTCONF to CoAP. Do you > mean some sort of RESTCONF/CoAP gateway box? I can't imagine > RESTCONF itself on a constrained device. > > I think HTTP and TCP are more problematic than RESTCONF. The concept of CRUD operations on a datastore scales down to constrained devices. CoAP defines an HTTP <--> CoAP proxy server, so the CoAP translation could be used. The direct translation may not be optimal, so there might be a "native CoAP mode" between CoAP client and CoAP server that was more efficient. > Brian > Andy
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
