Re: [Anima] draft-richardson-anima-ace-constrained-voucher

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

{clearing out old emails}

Jim Schaad <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > There are a couple of questions that I would put here that I think guides
    > things.

    > *  Is there any expectation that the path components would ever change for
    > some implementation or are they always going to be the same?  Would a
    > request voucher always be posted to /rv or could an implementation change it
    > to be /rvr?

To me, there is no reason.

    > *  Is there a reason for an endpoint to want to get what services are
    > supported as a general rule rather than just assuming that if the root
    > exists then all of the services are also going to exist.

I would tend to think that was the case.

    > If the answer to the first question is no, then I don't know that they even
    > need to have resource types.  You get the root and go from there.

    > If the answer to both questions is yes, then a different rt for every
    > service would be needed so that they can be distinguished.

    > If the answer to the first question is no and the second is yes, then it
    > would make sense to define a generic rt='ace.est.service' so that the root
    > and the list of services can be queried for individually.

I don't think it's justified.

It might be useful to be able to inquire to an EST (CoAP) end point whether or not
it supports the BRSKI extensions, but I can't come up with an operational
situation where this would be used.

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-