Re: [core] Endpoint Client Name / Endpoint Name in RD draft

Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> Wed, 04 April 2018 18:05 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@augustcellars.com>
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 BE9B9126BFD for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 11:05:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham 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 WqdmfGK2fNc8 for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 11:05:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.augustcellars.com (augustcellars.com [50.45.239.150]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9204712D775 for <core@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 11:05:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Jude (73.180.8.170) by mail2.augustcellars.com (192.168.0.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1347.2; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 11:03:32 -0700
From: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
To: 'Hannes Tschofenig' <Hannes.Tschofenig@arm.com>, 'Jaime Jiménez' <jaime.jimenez@ericsson.com>
CC: core@ietf.org
References: <VI1PR0801MB2112B52094B182F5D44C4F64FAA40@VI1PR0801MB2112.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> <A484D917-677C-4B29-BBAD-DDDE34B50303@ericsson.com> <VI1PR0801MB21128EA2B70DEEE7C5775A62FAA40@VI1PR0801MB2112.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <VI1PR0801MB21128EA2B70DEEE7C5775A62FAA40@VI1PR0801MB2112.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2018 11:05:41 -0700
Message-ID: <070801d3cc3f$8d59e0c0$a80da240$@augustcellars.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0709_01D3CC04.E0FC1A30"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQGcf25aV3GTfadMlg2+OgOm0/j8CAHJGZYkAVowTP2kRmWywA==
Content-Language: en-us
X-Originating-IP: [73.180.8.170]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/C1CViwJrRU68m9xI8vvh49u_0i4>
Subject: Re: [core] Endpoint Client Name / Endpoint Name in RD draft
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: Wed, 04 Apr 2018 18:05:54 -0000

Hannes,

 

I am not completely clear.  Are you saying that the RD should not have the endpoint name parameter as a defined property or something else?

 

Jim

 

 

From: core <core-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig
Sent: Wednesday, April 4, 2018 10:41 AM
To: Jaime Jiménez <jaime.jimenez@ericsson.com>
Cc: core@ietf.org WG <core@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [core] Endpoint Client Name / Endpoint Name in RD draft

 

Hi Jaime, 

 

using IP address and port for an endpoint (client) name would not be a good idea. 

In general, it was not a good idea to have this parameter defined in the first place. It might actually be better to remove it altogether. 

 

Ciao

Hannes

 

From: Jaime Jiménez [mailto:jaime.jimenez@ericsson.com] 
Sent: 04 April 2018 17:32
To: Hannes Tschofenig
Cc: core@ietf.org <mailto:core@ietf.org>  WG; Carsten Bormann
Subject: Re: [core] Endpoint Client Name / Endpoint Name in RD draft

 

Hi,

 

Note that endpoint can refer to both source and destination, being and IP:port in its simplest form: 

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7252#page-6 

 

The fact that LWM2M swaps those role names might actually add to the confusion, probably OMA LWM2M should be the one changing the terminology as the device is mostly a “server” hosting resources and only is a “client” during bootstrapping and registration. We could have used terms like “servient” instead but it might be too late for that.

 

Ciao!

- - Jaime Jiménez

 

On 4 Apr 2018, at 16.41, Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@arm.com <mailto:Hannes.Tschofenig@arm.com> > wrote:

 

Hi all, 

 

I noticed that the term “endpoint name” is used in the IETF RD draft while the OMA LwM2M spec uses the term “endpoint client name”. Endpoint is a confusing term since it is used differently in the CoAP spec than in the Web environment.

 

For this reason I believe it would be better to use the term “endpoint client name” also in the RD draft. This would improve alignment between the two specs.

 

Ciao

Hannes

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. _______________________________________________
core mailing list
 <mailto:core@ietf.org> core@ietf.org
 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.