> Why should we reject if it is included?
The Registrar-Proxy would typically not accept any CoAP forward-proxy request,
that is, any request containing the Proxy-Uri or Proxy-Scheme Option.
Instead it would return 5.05 (Proxying Not Supported) error as defined already
by 7252 Section 5.7.2.
Toerless Eckert wrote:
> Can we make sure that the text does explain why the field is not
> inclueded, and explain that the packet MUST be rejected if it was
> included ?
Why should we reject if it is included?
> Seems like:
> Field is not included and would cause rejection
Hi Toerless,
I don't think we have to explain why particular CoAP Options are not included
in the request - there are many CoAP Options we don't use. And in principle we
also don't need to motivate our design choices extensively in the draft.
We can just define the positive example of what we
> > cases where the Registrar would configure another resource (e.g. /j or
> > /join or whatever) and in such case a Uri-Path option would be needed.
>
> Okay, but I'd like to not do that :-)
Okay, I see your point - let's go for the '/' resource option and see if
reviewers further down the
