Re: [core] CORECONF k parameter encoding

[Koen Zandberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi Carsten,

On 15-09-2022 18:41, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> The irregularity of the table at Section 4.1 of draft-ietf-core-comi [1] was exactly what I tried to bring up in [2].
> I tried to find out reasons why it is so irregular and came up empty.
I see.
> I like your suggestion for resolving this (except that I would maybe encode an RFC 8742 CBOR sequence, saving a byte or 4/3 characters in the base64url encoding).

Fully agree with using RFC8742 as the number of items is implicit and 
can be derived from the length of the query string and some CBOR decoding.

As far as I can see, the main downside of my proposal is that it would 
increase the size of the query string in one of the common scenarios 
(key values being strings). Usually I'm in favor of decreasing the 
packet sizes at the cost of increasing processing on the device side, 
I'd be happy to accept a third alternative for encoding if anyone has a 
proposal. In this case though I prefer a base64 encoded CBOR sequence 
over the current draft proposal.

> It is late for this change, but possibly not too late.

That's great to hear.

Best regards,

Koen Zandberg