[core] Endpoint type (et) vs. resource type (rt)
Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Wed, 10 February 2021 13:42 UTC
Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
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 081053A100C for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Feb 2021 05:42:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.919
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.919 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 l4ddDqXdzU_5 for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Feb 2021 05:42:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 514373A0FF0 for <core@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Feb 2021 05:42:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.217.118] (p5089a828.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.168.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4DbLY93WwvzyWt; Wed, 10 Feb 2021 14:42:37 +0100 (CET)
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 634657356.8971961-8e0a40fc733d0ce9201638346830e46f
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2021 14:42:37 +0100
Message-Id: <8F2BA41A-011C-4C3F-88BE-D7C3E05C9465@tzi.org>
To: "core@ietf.org WG (core@ietf.org)" <core@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/HRSaCK8WxnF9ZqYmxwhOkgZqD8A>
Subject: [core] Endpoint type (et) vs. resource type (rt)
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 10 Feb 2021 13:42:43 -0000
CoRE RD defines an endpoint type (et). https://w3c.github.io/wot-discovery/#introduction-core-rd … uses the endpoint type as if it were a replacement for RFC 6990 rt (resource type). Is this replacement where we want to steer people to? Grüße, Carsten
- [core] Endpoint type (et) vs. resource type (rt) Carsten Bormann
- Re: [core] Endpoint type (et) vs. resource type (… Christian Amsüss