IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [core] #1: Agree on Sub/Not model and requirements

Paul Duffy <paduffy@cisco.com> Tue, 29 June 2010 13:59 UTC

Return-Path: <paduffy@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: core@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E5043A69CD for <core@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 06:59:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.155
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.155 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.444, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JGaDIMUeuRUj for <core@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 06:59:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A8BF3A6A1D for <core@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 06:59:49 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAAKZKUxAZnwN/2dsb2JhbACDHJwfcaRtgXoLAYcikR+BKYMJcgQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,505,1272844800"; d="scan'208";a="126777067"
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com ([64.102.124.13]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2010 13:59:59 +0000
Received: from [10.86.253.61] ([10.86.253.61]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o5TDxx2N014150; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 13:59:59 GMT
Message-ID: <4C29FC5E.7020006@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:59:58 -0400
From: Paul Duffy <paduffy@cisco.com>
Organization: Cisco Systems
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100512 Thunderbird/3.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: core issue tracker <trac@tools.ietf.org>, core <core@ietf.org>
References: <057.8d37fc1963a953ac6712dad4000b6b92@tools.ietf.org> <066.c9f96210b261445003240f95359bcefe@tools.ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <066.c9f96210b261445003240f95359bcefe@tools.ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [core] #1: Agree on Sub/Not model and requirements
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: paduffy@cisco.com
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <core.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 13:59:50 -0000

What exactly does this mean, that the "model and requirements" for 
sub/not are settled?


On 6/29/2010 3:31 AM, core issue tracker wrote:
> #1: Agree on Sub/Not model and requirements
> --------------------------------+-------------------------------------------
>   Reporter:  zach@…              |        Owner:  Cullen Jennings<fluffy@…>
>       Type:  task                |       Status:  closed
>   Priority:  critical            |    Milestone:
> Component:  coap                |      Version:
>   Severity:  -                   |   Resolution:  fixed
>   Keywords:                      |
> --------------------------------+-------------------------------------------
> Changes (by zach@…):
>
>    * status:  new =>  closed
>    * resolution:  =>  fixed
>
>
> Comment:
>
>   draft-hartke-coap-observe-00 captures the overall architecture and
>   requirements for asynchronous CoAP interactions. This satisfies the goal
>   of this ticket well.
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email