Re: [core] WG last-call (WGLC) of draft-ietf-core-http-mapping-07

["weigengyu" <[e-mail]>]

Hi， 

When a http client accesses a CoAP server, 
how does the CoAP client of HC proxy create a NON-reposnse option since there is not in HTTP. 
Or it is useless for HC proxy, or not? 

Regards,

Gengyu WEI
Network Technology Center
School of Computer 
Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications

From: Rahman, Akbar 
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 2:00 AM
To: Abhijan Bhattacharyya ; Carsten Bormann 
Cc: mailto:[e-mail] ; core 
Subject: Re: [core] WG last-call (WGLC) of draft-ietf-core-http-mapping-07

Hi Abhijan,

 

 

Thanks for your support on the draft!

 

With regards to your question:

 

> Given that No-Response now has a number (284) from IANA in the CoRE option registry (http://www.iana.org/assignments/core-parameters/core-parameters.xhtml#option-numbers) probably it will be a good idea to keep a section to discuss how to handle this option since this is not there in HTTP. Somewhere in Section 8 should be a good place for such discussion. 



 

Yes, I agree this is a good topic to add to the draft.  How about something based on the following text:

 

--------------------------------

8.8 CoAP No Response

 

CoAP supports sending a Request indicating that “No Response” is required when the CoAP header option number is set to 284.  An HC Proxy may translate an incoming HTTP Request to a corresponding CoAP Request indicating that no response is required following the guidance in (Ref: http://www.iana.org/assignments/core-parameters/core-parameters.xhtml#option-numbers).

 

---------------------------------

 

 

Any feedback?

 

 

/Akbar

 

 

From: core [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Abhijan Bhattacharyya
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 5:34 AM
To: Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>
Cc: core <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] WG <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [core] WG last-call (WGLC) of draft-ietf-core-http-mapping-07

 

Dear all, 
I think this draft is indeed an appreciable effort as it will ease out many implementation decisions for the developers and should be very useful as an RFC. 

Dear authors, 
I have one small comment : 
Given that No-Response now has a number (284) from IANA in the CoRE option registry (http://www.iana.org/assignments/core-parameters/core-parameters.xhtml#option-numbers) probably it will be a good idea to keep a section to discuss how to handle this option since this is not there in HTTP. Somewhere in Section 8 should be a good place for such discussion. 



Regards
Abhijan Bhattacharyya
Associate Consultant
Scientist, Innovation Lab, Kolkata, India
Tata Consultancy Services
Mailto: [e-mail]
Website: http://www.tcs.com
____________________________________________
Experience certainty.        IT Services
                       Business Solutions
                       Consulting
____________________________________________




From:        Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> 
To:        "mailto:[e-mail]%20WG" <[e-mail]> 
Date:        09/15/2015 08:51 PM 
Subject:        [core] WG last-call (WGLC) of draft-ietf-core-http-mapping-07 
Sent by:        "core" <[e-mail]> 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




In Prague, we said we were going to WGLC the HTTP mapping draft after
close of the vacation period, which is now behind us.  All outstanding
tickets are closed, and there was enough time to review the current
draft.  Three people raised their hands when we asked who would submit
reviews (Michael K., Klaus, Darshak), but of course additional reviews
beyond that are also very useful.

So this starts a working group last call for
draft-ietf-core-http-mapping for submission as an informational RFC,
ending on

24:00 PDT on Tuesday, September 29, 2015.

The draft is located at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-core-http-mapping-07

Please start a new email thread for each major issue that will need
discussion and make sure the subject line includes the draft name and
some sort of name for the issue. For minor issues such as typos and
things that are not likely to lead to much discussion, it is probably
easier to group them all in to one email but again, please make sure
the subject line includes the draft name. If you read the draft and
think it looks fine, please send a one line email to the list or to
the chairs letting us know that so we can get a feel of how broad the
review has been.

In the unlikely event that you are aware of any patent claims that
might apply to systems that implement the suggestions in this draft,
please review BCP 78 and BCP 79 and make any appropriate IPR
declaration. If you are not sure whether you need to make a
declaration or not, please talk to the chairs and we will help get you
in touch with people that can provide appropriate advice.

Grüße, Carsten

_______________________________________________
core mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core

=====-----=====-----=====
Notice: The information contained in this e-mail
message and/or attachments to it may contain 
confidential or privileged information. If you are 
not the intended recipient, any dissemination, use, 
review, distribution, printing or copying of the 
information contained in this e-mail message 
and/or attachments to it are strictly prohibited. If 
you have received this communication in error, 
please notify us by reply e-mail or telephone and 
immediately and permanently delete the message 
and any attachments. Thank you



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
core mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core