Hi, the -13 version of draft-ietf-anima-constrained-join-proxy is posted now. Here is the diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-anima-constrained-join-proxy-12&url2=draft-ietf-anima-constrained-join-proxy-13&difftype=--html
The -13 is created from a series of pull requests which are not merged, but he parts where I change the "JPY" to a CoAP header are at: https://github.com/anima-wg/constrained-join-proxy/pull/42 Some questions to the CoAP experts. The Proxy-Scheme option is set to "coap". Do I even need this? It costs 6 bytes, I think, assuming that "coap" is a four byte string, and not code for a enumerated type. If not, I'd have no options, and the additional overhead of CoAP vs custom CBOR would be two bytes. Christian said two weeks ago that we didn't need Uri-Host or Uri-Path options. I think that we will be running on a custom port. (But, RFC9031 thought it needed them. Was that wrong?) The Registrar's DTLS stack might need to send more than one reply in response to a single DTLS "POST". This is buried in the DTLS state machine, and might be related to DTLS handshake fragmenting headers, or to rekeys, or... Is that going to be a problem, and is POST still the right method? Appendix A has some details on the CoAP header, which I'd like a review. Did I even get it halfway right? -- Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
