IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [core] Questions/comments on draft-ietf-core-dynlink-02

"Carey, Timothy (Nokia - US)" <timothy.carey@nokia.com> Fri, 10 March 2017 20:12 UTC

Return-Path: <timothy.carey@nokia.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 434B9129440 for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 12:12:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.921
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.921 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-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 E73_oYX7hfOe for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 12:12:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-us.alcatel-lucent.com (us-hpswa-esg-02.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.18.30]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35C721293FB for <core@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 12:12:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from us70uumx4.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.245.18.16]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id C72AD2B8D4CE9; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 20:12:44 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from us70uusmtp4.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (us70uusmtp4.zam.alcatel-lucent.com [135.5.2.66]) by us70uumx4.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id v2AKClRG016013 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 10 Mar 2017 20:12:47 GMT
Received: from US70UWXCHHUB02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (us70uwxchhub02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com [135.5.2.49]) by us70uusmtp4.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id v2AKCl8o021258 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 10 Mar 2017 20:12:47 GMT
Received: from US70UWXCHMBA05.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.10.74]) by US70UWXCHHUB02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.5.2.49]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 15:12:47 -0500
From: "Carey, Timothy (Nokia - US)" <timothy.carey@nokia.com>
To: Mojan Mohajer <mojan.mohajer@u-blox.com>, core <core@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [core] Questions/comments on draft-ietf-core-dynlink-02
Thread-Index: AQHSmdkK7VgKxW94xUGnyHuxQn3LpaGOgLHQ
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 20:12:45 +0000
Message-ID: <9966516C6EB5FC4381E05BF80AA55F77012A8AA931@US70UWXCHMBA05.zam.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <zarafa.58c28563.565a.4a1c907d21bf17bc@za.u-blox.com>
In-Reply-To: <zarafa.58c28563.565a.4a1c907d21bf17bc@za.u-blox.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.5.27.16]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/KEYuTvDwVHcHo1MnwPSEQZaRF-g>
Subject: Re: [core] Questions/comments on draft-ietf-core-dynlink-02
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 20:12:51 -0000

Mojan,

I certainly agree - we should be careful about renaming these attributes; the attributes have been around for a while and are used by OMA for sure.

Yes you are indeed correct the examples do not align with normative language of section 4.2 - this again can cause problems in other SDOs.

BR,
Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: Mojan Mohajer [mailto:mojan.mohajer@u-blox.com] 
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 4:52 AM
To: core <core@ietf.org>
Subject: [core] Questions/comments on draft-ietf-core-dynlink-02

1)The latest draft has renamed "gt" and "lt" attributes to "gth" and "lth" respectively. Has any consideration been given to the impact of this name change on other SDOs and their specifications where CoAP and these attributes are used. For example, OMA LwM2M v1.0 which has recently been formally released uses CoAP as its application layer protocol and these attributes for notification purposes.

2) Section 4.2 which covers resource observation attributes (pmin, pmax, st, ...) states that that: ..."These query parameters MUST be treated as resources that are read using GET and updated using PUT, and MUST NOT be included in the Observe request" ....
However, looking at newly added Annex A which provides observation examples, these observation attributes are passed as query parameters of a Get request with Observe option set to 0. There seems to be some contradiction between the text in section 4.2 and the example in Annex A.

Best Regards,
Mojan

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email