Re: [core] Binding Attributes in draft-groves-core-dynlink-02

Michael,

Well the IETF interfaces draft has been consistent - the step attribute is "st".
I went back and traced the change in LWM2M from "st" to "stp".
It occurred between: 
The February 2015 (OMA-TS-LightweightM2M-V1_0-20150228-D) has "stp" and the February 2015 version (OMA-TS-LightweightM2M-V1_0-20150225-D) has "st".
The agreed to cr that brought that change was OMA-DM-LightweightM2M-2015-0008R01-CR_Attributes_

I added Thierry into this email - maybe he can answer your question better since he brought the original CR but it looks to me to be an editorial problem when he restructured that part of the document and clarified the rules for use within LWM2M... Probably just a typo that needs corrected in the OMA spec...

BR,
Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Koster [mailto:michaeljohnkoster@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2017 1:33 PM
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Cc: Carey, Timothy (Nokia - US) <timothy.carey@nokia.com>; core@ietf.org WG <core@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [core] Binding Attributes in draft-groves-core-dynlink-02

Hi Tim,

Is there a name collision with "st" that required OMA LWM2M to use "stp" instead? I used "st" in the mbed reference implementation in early 2015.

Best regards,

Michael

> On Feb 25, 2017, at 10:08 AM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
> 
> (No chair hat.)
> 
>> On 25 Feb 2017, at 17:34, Carey, Timothy (Nokia - US) <timothy.carey@nokia.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I noticed in the latest draft the binding attributes were changed.
>> The LWM2M uses the binding attributes in their specification that was recently published.
>> In LWM2M Greater than is gt; Less than is lt and Step is stp.
>> In the latest dynlink draft Greater than is gth; Less than is lth and Step is st
>> 
>> Do we know the reason for the change?
> 
> There was a naming issue with “lt” being used for both lifetime and less than.
> This is not a problem now, but could become one.
> Since lifetime was in use, attempts have been made to rename less than (and greater than analogously), but discussion took some time (maybe because lt and gt are the obvious names for anyone who has heard of FORTRAN).
> 
>> Is it possible to use lt; gt; stp as is specificed in LWM2M?
> 
> Maybe we have missed a window in which this change (avoiding the name collision) could have been net positive.
> 
> Grüße, Carsten
> 
> _______________________________________________
> core mailing list
> core@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core