Re: [core] RFC9177 vs RFC7959
Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Thu, 23 June 2022 17:01 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 6AE87C15AD41 for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 10:01:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.906
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pKhgnzE-rd3L for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 10:01:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.15]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F448C159490 for <core@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 10:01:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.217.118] (p5089ad4f.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.173.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4LTRNh46hPzDCds; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 19:01:24 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <20040.1656003536@localhost>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 19:01:24 +0200
Cc: core@ietf.org
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 677696484.167732-216ef1b7aa52dab4e7d1431a8229771b
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <48D75981-DD0A-457B-9BED-C64EAA5E8AE9@tzi.org>
References: <20040.1656003536@localhost>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/Zu40deUDC43uoQVksl3TDXJkUO8>
Subject: Re: [core] RFC9177 vs RFC7959
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 17:01:31 -0000
On 2022-06-23, at 18:58, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote: > > Signed PGP part > > I was just updating some documentation for a CoAP library. > Replacing I-D names with RFCs. > > Why doesn't RFC9177 Update (as in "See Also") RFC7959? Because it doesn’t. It is an alternative set of CoAP options to those defined in RFC 7959. It is intended for certain very specifically circumscribed use cases. (Robust == DDoS-busting.) > RFC7959:Blockwise Transfer https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7959 > RFC9177:Block-Wise Transfer Options Supporting Robust Transmission > https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9177 Grüße, Carsten
- [core] RFC9177 vs RFC7959 Michael Richardson
- Re: [core] RFC9177 vs RFC7959 Carsten Bormann