Re: [Anima] [core] ANIMA constrained-join proxy revision to use CoAP

On 31-Oct-22 22:24, Esko Dijk wrote:
>>> 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 line are okay with that. I just noticed that when GRASP discovery is used (service "BRSKI_RJP") the Join Proxy only discovers IP address and port so has to make an assumption on the URI resource name being '/'.

Two comments there:

1) It would be trivial to extend the definition of the BRSKI_RJP objective by giving
it a meaningful value field, such as a string defining the URI resource name. Like:

    objective-value   =  text      ; URI resource name

2) At the moment draft-ietf-anima-constrained-join-proxy cuts a corner in its definition of BRSKI_JP. Even if you want to save typing by citing Fig. 10 of RFC8995, you need to
add an IANA Consideration formally registering the objective (like section 8.7 of
RFC8995).

Regards
     Brian

> If any other CoAP resource would be possible as well, then that resource name would have to be advertised in GRASP too. We could say that because our service is being discovered on a particular port (typically differing from the default CoAP port as shown in Section 5.1.1 example) we don't have the issue that we would interfere with other resources using name "/".
> 
>> So, no Uri-Path option is equivalent to /?
> Yes! It's also equivalent to the same URI without the trailing slash, which is the format we show in Section 5.1.1.
> 
> Regards
> Esko
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2022 19:39
> To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
> Cc: Esko Dijk <esko.dijk@iotconsultancy.nl>; anima@ietf.org; core@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Anima] [core] ANIMA constrained-join proxy revision to use CoAP
> 
> 
> Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> 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: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7252#section-6.4
> 
>      > Step 8 treats coap://foo and coap://foo/ in the same way:
> 
>      >        If the value of the <path> component of |url| is empty or
>      > consists of a single slash character (U+002F SOLIDUS "/"), then move to
>      > the next step.
> 
> So, no Uri-Path option is equivalent to /?
> 
> 
> --
> 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