Re: [Anima] checking on advancing draft-ietf-anima-constrained-join-proxy / 'rt' naming

  HI Esko,

The PR of MCR has been applied to main,
meaning that we now use the rt-values brski.jp and brski.rjp.

Greetings,

Peter
Esko Dijk schreef op 2021-11-29 11:17:

> Apart from the discussion whether the (current) hierarchical naming 
> convention is to be used, or any names without hierarchy (because it is 
> allowed for rt), there is an additional consideration to make.
> 
> If a Pledge wants to use CoAP discovery to discover one of a 
> Constrained Join Proxy or Registrar on the link, because typically it 
> would be able to contact both (DTLS connection & messages are 
> identical), it would help very much if it only has to do a single 
> discovery action for both. And not 2 separate discovery actions.
> 
> If the Pledge discovers for resources with rt=brski* , this is useful 
> as it will find resource "rt=brski" indicating a Registrar and also 
> resources "rt=brski.jp" indicating a Constrained Join Proxy. I can pick 
> either one it finds. If both are found it may prefer the Registrar 
> directly (rt=brski).
> 
> In my view this naming choice (brski.*) thus makes things more 
> efficient and consistent; it is more than just a name.
> 
> Regards
> Esko
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2021 18:49
> To: Esko Dijk <esko.dijk@iotconsultancy.nl>; core@ietf.org
> Cc: Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com>; anima@ietf.org; Peter van der 
> Stok <stokcons@bbhmail.nl>
> Subject: Re: [Anima] checking on advancing 
> draft-ietf-anima-constrained-join-proxy / 'rt' naming
> 
> Esko Dijk <esko.dijk@iotconsultancy.nl> wrote:
>> I checked the new version against my review comments; and the 
>> following
>> comment is still open - this is where Peter and me disagree.
> 
> understood.
> I have no real opinion.
> 
>> core.* - CoRE WG types
>> ace.* - ACE WG types
>> brski.* - ANIMA WG types for BRSKI - not yet in the registry but 
>> specified in
>> draft-constrained-voucher.
>> oic.* - any types specified by OCF/OIC
>> fa.*  - any types specified by Fairhair Alliance
> 
>> Hence my request to comply to this convention, however undocumented it
>> is today. Any system architect would agree to that seeing the current
>> list.
> 
> Can we ask core@ to review and comment then?
> 
> original message: 
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/s9yU6LPnV8pE17Ws2xjH2f0mrO0/
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
> -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> Anima@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima