Re: [core] Questions and comments against the github version

[Peter van der Stok <[e-mail]>]

Hi JIm, Christian,

Just my hesitant 2 cents below, given my earlier explanation on this
subject.

> Hello Jim, Peter,
> 
> (trying to wrap up all the comments that have been exchanged here)
> 
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 06:22:48PM -0800, Jim Schaad wrote: *  In section 5.3, I don't understand why the rule exists that if the
> attribute values are different then the location of the registration needs
> to be changed.   It seems that this could lead to some interesting conflicts
> in behavior depending on what messages are used. 
> Frankly, I don't understand why those rules need to be here in the first
> place -- from my PoV the only thing that matters is CoAP idempotency
> (ie. identical messages that arrive with no other related operations
> inbetween have the same result).
> 
> Peter, any concrete ideas on how to clean them up -- preferably in a way
> that they don't speak of "updates"?
> 
> (My alternative would be: "The following rules" and their items, and
> state that "Any Registration that has the same endpoint name and sector
> ('ep' and 'd' values) as a previously active one implicitly deletes that
> registration." -- the idempotency rule stays intact and allows some
> optimizations in terms of retransmission, but for everything else
> everyone pretty please use the Location returned, whatever that is.)

<pvds>
Original text:
"The following rules apply for an for an update identified by a given
(ep, d)
   value pair:

   o  when the parameter values of the Update generate the same
      attribute values as already present, the location of the already
      existing registration is returned.

   o  when for a given (ep, d) value pair the update generates attribute
      values which are different from the existing one, the existing
      registration is removed and a new registration with a new location
      is created.

   o  when the (ep, d) value pair of the update is different from any
      existing registration, a new registration is generated." New text:
"The following rules apply for a registration-request targeting a given
(ep, d)
   value pair:
 o  when the (ep, d) value pair of the registration-request  is
different from any
      existing registration, a new registration is generated."
o  when the (ep, d) value pair of the registration-request is equal to
an
      existing registration, the content of the existing registration is
replaced with the content of the registration-request"

Better?
</pvds>

Peter