Re: [core] "No Content" CoAP option (was Re: "Too Many Requests Response Code for CoAP" draft (draft-keranen-core-too-many-reqs-00))

Klaus Hartke <hartke@projectcool.de> Sun, 11 March 2018 10:15 UTC

Return-Path: <hartke@projectcool.de>
X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 987F3124B0A for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 Mar 2018 03:15:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_FAIL=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hVm2vkSA6Fe5 for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 Mar 2018 03:15:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wp382.webpack.hosteurope.de (wp382.webpack.hosteurope.de [IPv6:2a01:488:42:1000:50ed:8597::]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 323871201FA for <core@ietf.org>; Sun, 11 Mar 2018 03:15:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-f180.google.com ([209.85.220.180]); authenticated by wp382.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) id 1euy0Y-0002gR-HV; Sun, 11 Mar 2018 11:15:14 +0100
Received: by mail-qk0-f180.google.com with SMTP id s198so8438367qke.5 for <core@ietf.org>; Sun, 11 Mar 2018 03:15:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7EnLJFgd597wqVkHsHSGzVHuN2XKO9ebartww2uske07UKj+Pd+ 4sHfdJGsWzIP07Ohd8rENq+JXzMX2a0EmnQWj/4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELvKZpGbPTtTm0URoWsBpxw/e/5EUEW7EXwRdi1dhZI1oEg1KontZpPZYOwJfSLZlJqnqO6qD5VwFArufTWv+mc=
X-Received: by 10.55.58.6 with SMTP id h6mr6504084qka.291.1520763313500; Sun, 11 Mar 2018 03:15:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.12.134.195 with HTTP; Sun, 11 Mar 2018 03:14:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <753934EB-16DB-4AD9-915E-1A9298FAA1A1@ericsson.com>
References: <152025806136.14652.11784946748337213501.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <225023B8-B663-482A-93E6-8DD054606A79@ericsson.com> <CAAzbHvYBycMA48UBA=J_ZZBUf9fjsam8uaQPpwpe_02swhQp4Q@mail.gmail.com> <2599BFCF-9A26-40BE-95E1-FBFF6B1ECDD4@gmail.com> <CAAzbHvazO6zRPG5tdJnDWNdFqpQatZB2-wzTJM3q5gAsqF4QzQ@mail.gmail.com> <753934EB-16DB-4AD9-915E-1A9298FAA1A1@ericsson.com>
From: Klaus Hartke <hartke@projectcool.de>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 11:14:33 +0100
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAAzbHvbuCdQRJfOPZ=LHnXFtpnTcuRcDErUXRCFux+gyzyo6zg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAzbHvbuCdQRJfOPZ=LHnXFtpnTcuRcDErUXRCFux+gyzyo6zg@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?B?QXJpIEtlcsOkbmVu?= <ari.keranen@ericsson.com>
Cc: core <core@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de; hartke@projectcool.de; 1520763316; 6dee4959;
X-HE-SMSGID: 1euy0Y-0002gR-HV
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/6zQCWYInsbeKqkxBTiY2UD4KQ74>
Subject: Re: [core] "No Content" CoAP option (was Re: "Too Many Requests Response Code for CoAP" draft (draft-keranen-core-too-many-reqs-00))
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <core.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/core/>
List-Post: <mailto:core@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 10:15:17 -0000

Ari Keränen wrote:
> But the dual use of the "X" vs. "X pending" was a bit unclear in the draft now.

Agreed; the wording in the draft has some room for improvement.

>> We had that in the -01 version of the draft, but that didn't seem to
>> gain traction, so we've switched to a new content-format to indicate
>> this status. Would this work for pub/sub?
>
> Do you remember what was the reason for lack of traction?

Not sure since I wasn't at IETF 100 where it was discussed. But there
are some notes in the meeting minutes [1].

Klaus

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/100/materials/minutes-100-core.md
(search for "13:35")