Re: [core] "No Content" CoAP option (was Re: "Too Many Requests Response Code for CoAP" draft (draft-keranen-core-too-many-reqs-00))

peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl> Mon, 12 March 2018 07:48 UTC

Return-Path: <stokcons@xs4all.nl>
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 D279B1270A3 for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 00:48:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 62T2DqRGfon4 for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 00:48:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lb1-smtp-cloud7.xs4all.net (lb1-smtp-cloud7.xs4all.net [194.109.24.24]) (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 8D1041270A0 for <core@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 00:48:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.xs4all.nl ([IPv6:2001:888:0:22:194:109:20:200]) by smtp-cloud7.xs4all.net with ESMTPA id vIC2eFrBU8U07vIC2eXiWI; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 08:48:27 +0100
Received: from 2001:983:a264:1:5ddc:c088:1025:584f by webmail.xs4all.nl with HTTP (HTTP/1.1 POST); Mon, 12 Mar 2018 08:48:26 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 08:48:26 +0100
From: peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl>
To: Klaus Hartke <hartke@projectcool.de>
Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Ari_Ker=C3=A4nen?= <ari.keranen@ericsson.com>, core <core@ietf.org>
Organization: vanderstok consultancy
Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org
Mail-Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org
In-Reply-To: <CAAzbHvbuCdQRJfOPZ=LHnXFtpnTcuRcDErUXRCFux+gyzyo6zg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <152025806136.14652.11784946748337213501.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <225023B8-B663-482A-93E6-8DD054606A79@ericsson.com> <CAAzbHvYBycMA48UBA=J_ZZBUf9fjsam8uaQPpwpe_02swhQp4Q@mail.gmail.com> <2599BFCF-9A26-40BE-95E1-FBFF6B1ECDD4@gmail.com> <CAAzbHvazO6zRPG5tdJnDWNdFqpQatZB2-wzTJM3q5gAsqF4QzQ@mail.gmail.com> <753934EB-16DB-4AD9-915E-1A9298FAA1A1@ericsson.com> <CAAzbHvbuCdQRJfOPZ=LHnXFtpnTcuRcDErUXRCFux+gyzyo6zg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e70d2fbef568e5fb9e0c573b3f99f57e@xs4all.nl>
X-Sender: stokcons@xs4all.nl
User-Agent: XS4ALL Webmail
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfEGzkd7rTmaIw8VY2a103AMnQD38rfbMjWkth8eZyuynbGEsO7FcJxbVV9UnmmxQ0sjmQtis3wos3YfpVo9Tjw5R73RksFl3AdSn9vZRQmndZzcl9oxJ 9DWN0llHUtq08fZevASLK5RcaFYFzdHAaGXKQk5OZvYOK2GmQIJVXymouWXSnEC00CK2h4iYIcdEzKwURpwyBwvjlQiLcol943uRJM0qLB2HPfLIxmioA32N or2cZeB0RwqYz/P1+n+hYQ==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/aSR0tC7xyQpqII2KaBn3_2jl2dg>
Subject: Re: [core] "No Content" CoAP option (was Re: "Too Many Requests Response Code for CoAP" draft (draft-keranen-core-too-many-reqs-00))
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 07:48:32 -0000

> 
>>> We had that in the -01 version of the draft, but that didn't seem to
>>> gain traction, so we've switched to a new content-format to indicate
>>> this status. Would this work for pub/sub?
>> 
>> Do you remember what was the reason for lack of traction?
> 
> Not sure since I wasn't at IETF 100 where it was discussed. But there
> are some notes in the meeting minutes [1].
> 
I was at ietf100, presenting the pending draft.
In short, a new response code was not encouraged; so the suggested 2.06 
was out.
Response code 5.03 (service unavailable) was suggested by Carsten, but 
we are clearly not talking about an unavailable service:
the service is available but slow.........

Not seeing any other obvious response code, Klaus suggested the 
content-format option.

Cheerio,

peter