Re: [Ace] ace-coap-est: unclear definition of /.well-known/est URI
Esko Dijk wrote: > @Michael: > Since the EST resource is always present on the fixed port 5684 on URI > /.well-known/est - if a fixed port is needed e.g. for a join proxy, use > 5684 and the well-known URI. No discovery needed. I've asked if discovery is always required, permitted, or encouraged. I.e. - can the client avoid the round trip to do the discovery? - does the server have to provide the discovery? -- if not, what does a client do that performs the discovery and fails? I've been told it was required. -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
Re: [Ace] ace-coap-est: unclear definition of /.well-known/est URI
Esko Dijk wrote: > Indeed, and the ace-coap-est examples use port 61616 mostly. The > discovery Link Format is quite inefficient when returning results on > *different* endpoints. Example: > REQ: GET coap://[2001:db8::2:1]/.well-known/core?rt=ace.est > RES: 2.05 Content > ;rt="ace.est" I understand. > Although in above case the server could shorten the response payload by > returning its IP address ( [2001:db8::2:1]:61616/est>;rt="ace.est"). But still it’s a waste of > bytes. It could have multiple addresses!!! I've seen it just return , but I guess if you want to return the port number, you have to return the hostname... <:61616/est> won't do? > The current example in Section 5 of ace-coap-est is problematic, > because discovery is on port 5683 and the hosted EST endpoint is on the > secure port 5684. So the following won’t work according to RFC 7252 / So I've assumed that discovery happens on 5684, under DTLS. You are suggesting that we need to run an unencrypted CoAP to offer the discovery option as well. -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
Re: [Ace] ace-coap-est: unclear definition of /.well-known/est URI
Indeed, and the ace-coap-est examples use port 61616 mostly. The discovery Link Format is quite inefficient when returning results on *different* endpoints. Example: REQ: GET coap://[2001:db8::2:1]/.well-known/core?rt=ace.est RES: 2.05 Content ;rt="ace.est" Although in above case the server could shorten the response payload by returning its IP address ( ;rt="ace.est"). But still it’s a waste of bytes. The current example in Section 5 of ace-coap-est is problematic, because discovery is on port 5683 and the hosted EST endpoint is on the secure port 5684. So the following won’t work according to RFC 7252 / RFC 6690: REQ: GET coap://[2001:db8::2:1]/.well-known/core?rt=ace.est RES: 2.05 Content ;rt="ace.est" Because strictly speaking this tells the client that /est is hosted on port 5683 (no statement about 5684 hosting!) I see this as a design flaw in CoAP discovery; we would like to be able to use the above short syntax of course. @Michael: Since the EST resource is always present on the fixed port 5684 on URI /.well-known/est - if a fixed port is needed e.g. for a join proxy, use 5684 and the well-known URI. No discovery needed. Esko From: Peter van der Stok Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2018 16:56 To: Michael Richardson Cc: Esko Dijk ; Panos Kampanakis (pkampana) ; ace@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Ace] ace-coap-est: unclear definition of /.well-known/est URI Michael Richardson schreef op 2018-09-20 16:51: I didn't think that CoAP resource discovery supports port numbers, does it? It does; at least for the 3rd party registration, but also examples in the RD show return of port ___ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
Re: [Ace] ace-coap-est: unclear definition of /.well-known/est URI
Michael Richardson schreef op 2018-09-20 16:51: > I didn't think that CoAP resource discovery supports port numbers, does it? > > It does; at least for the 3rd party registration, but also examples in the RD > show return of port___ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
Re: [Ace] ace-coap-est: unclear definition of /.well-known/est URI
Esko Dijk wrote: > To be fully complete the URIs that can be discovered should also > include a port number, as they could be hosted at 5684 or any available > UDP port - other than 5683. >coaps://www.example.com:// > coaps://www.example.com://ArbitraryLabel/ I didn't think that CoAP resource discovery supports port numbers, does it? There are some issues with this, specifically because it interacts poorly with the join proxy mechanism. (The proxy always forwards to a single port, and only listens on a single port) I supppose that's okay, for that usage can be banned for the zero-touch join mechanisms that use a join proxy. -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
