Dear Toerless,
thanks, but I *actually asked* for a slot in my e-mail to you from
18.10.2022 (09:41:05 +0200) to your E-Mail address
as well as to anima-cha...@ietf.org. However, I already expressed that I
understand that chartered items have priority.
Regards,
Roland
On 27.10.22 at 04:28
Hi Brian,
Thanks for your reply, allowing me to modify the draft better.
Because of my lack of understanding of the CDDL format, some
definitions are misunderstood. I update Figure 2 according to RFC8610, and hope
this version is clearer. If there are lack of
Roland:
YOu didn't explicitly ask for a slot, but i tentatively added one for you at the
end of the ANIMA @ IETF 115 agenda. Note that this is tentative not only because
you of course are only invited and can happily decline, but also because
any non-chartered item would only be given time if
As usual, i have used notes.ietf.org for the agenda, please see:
https://notes.ietf.org/s/notes-ietf-115-anima
Pls. check if your request for a slot was correctly honored, if not, please get
back to us chairs immediately.
I have sent a separate email to those with WG drafts for which no slot
> On 2022-10-26, at 19:39, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> So, no Uri-Path option is equivalent to /?
Actually, to
coap://foo
and
coap://foo/
For contrast, note that
coap://foo?
and the equivalent
coap://foo/?
actually have a single empty Uri-Query Option, but
Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> I'm not 100% sure if for a resource at the root (/), one Uri-Path
>> Option with 0 length is needed or if 0 Uri-Path Options can be used.
>> Or if both methods would be valid.
> That is a well-known idiosyncracy in the URI format.
> Have a look at:
Esko Dijk wrote:
> Yes, the assumption is still that a CoAP request made to the root
> resource (/) is valid and can be encoded by including 0 Uri-Path
> Options.
Well, the word from the Oct.12 meeting was that we didn't need it.
> Since the proposed CoAP message does not
On 2022-10-26, at 16:57, Esko Dijk wrote:
>
> I'm not 100% sure if for a resource at the root (/), one Uri-Path Option with
> 0 length is needed or if 0 Uri-Path Options can be used. Or if both methods
> would be valid.
That is a well-known idiosyncracy in the URI format.
Have a look at:
Yes, the assumption is still that a CoAP request made to the root resource (/)
is valid and can be encoded by including 0 Uri-Path Options. Since the proposed
CoAP message does not contain any Uri-Path option, it should be directed to the
root resource. There could also be cases where the
Esko Dijk wrote:
>> The Proxy-Scheme option is set to "coap". Do I even need this?
> I don't think we can use the Proxy-Scheme (or the Proxy-Uri) Option
If we don't need it, then GREAT, that's six bytes we save.
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT
Hi Michael,
> The Proxy-Scheme option is set to "coap".
> Do I even need this?
I don't think we can use the Proxy-Scheme (or the Proxy-Uri) Option here. The
reason is that it is meant for a CoAP forward-proxy, that is a proxy that
receives a CoAP request and creates another fresh/new CoAP
11 matches
Mail list logo
