Re: [core] SenML FETCH/PATCH (draft-ietf-core-senml-etch) update

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Wed, 06 February 2019 15:39 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 719C8128CF3 for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 07:39:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 zwjCsiSGcRHS for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 07:39:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) (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 CB39F12426E for <core@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 07:39:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de
Received: from submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (submithost2.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c8:406a:91ff:fe74:f2b7]) by mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x16FdT5G023809; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 16:39:35 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.217.106] (p54A6CC50.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.166.204.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 43vlxF5GXTz1Br6; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 16:39:29 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <67263A7E-E122-4B84-A0A8-577D5A37FF3B@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2019 16:39:28 +0100
Cc: core <core@ietf.org>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 571160366.997692-356085862f16d9a1977b7f10000961bd
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8C82F5DA-2BAD-47C5-B9F2-D2D14AB917AA@tzi.org>
References: <67263A7E-E122-4B84-A0A8-577D5A37FF3B@ericsson.com>
To: =?utf-8?Q?Ari_Ker=C3=A4nen?= <ari.keranen@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/ar6oLlF9jXRqIsAeTT_JPbcOdy8>
Subject: Re: [core] SenML FETCH/PATCH (draft-ietf-core-senml-etch) update
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 06 Feb 2019 15:39:41 -0000

On Feb 6, 2019, at 14:20, Ari Keränen <ari.keranen@ericsson.com> wrote:
> 
> One minor issues for media type registration: Do we need fragment IDs? I don't see strong need, but we could simply re-use the SenML fragment ID handling also here.

Fragment IDs for patches boggles my mind.

Any use for fragment IDs I can imagine would be about addressing results of the patch process, not about addressing parts of the patch.  But maybe this is proof by lack of imagination.

Grüße, Carsten