Re: [core] Question on draft-fossati-core-publish-option-02

Thomas Fossati <tho@koanlogic.com> Tue, 22 October 2013 20:59 UTC

Return-Path: <tho@koanlogic.com>
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 2468011E81EB for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 13:59:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UdWMYhFg37+E for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 13:59:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-f54.google.com (mail-la0-f54.google.com [209.85.215.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E5CC11E81F2 for <core@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 13:59:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-la0-f54.google.com with SMTP id gx14so3324278lab.41 for <core@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 13:59:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=n3W6QIC45EAXy7hOCKAd51vmZuOlx6NngexIyj/LXXo=; b=jKcoy+d5KMVqso6WCvbNiYk6BBUCu845Pw+xnmnr2xmnk1wIVMbcdSNJokrZ0CUrTs afvA05+tjygyzcwMChX/u9L306oK0Yvzlumnau1YY7jEKaBg1kv0HY/Pvem6oObPlm9x P5QEk5SYP6MLhEx4YJXNjcIxQztICTk78Xc2Nt9T38ymR4MqPknBKoGkBQGZw922ug0j 9VY2M/QDYYQQ4VuUmROwRu6aEx5M0mzO4H5Bh5yXtv+MK23n4PPVJw3xC/Bdoq7pJpt3 UHILVVno7c82O2pjBbeZKAd3sus5h7OEBWwTUU/81qVydEI8e7Gi4lcQhU98m3svmWlT fa9w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkjYNTuvtLooOdzZBi3n+FzE4wSmaR414A8jCQQsEKRrkAtcszVsxXGMiW/8YFNosj+HVtX
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.136.195 with SMTP id qc3mr129935lbb.55.1382475540213; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 13:59:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.114.21.4 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 13:59:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [89.243.219.188]
In-Reply-To: <D60519DB022FFA48974A25955FFEC08C055A2BE9@SAM.InterDigital.com>
References: <D60519DB022FFA48974A25955FFEC08C055A2BE9@SAM.InterDigital.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 21:59:00 +0100
Message-ID: <CAByMhx9Xi5DwxfYG5k6BO6i2XcLRZjv90HsCppmLF-2oZYO6Mg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Thomas Fossati <tho@koanlogic.com>
To: "Rahman, Akbar" <Akbar.Rahman@interdigital.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: "core@ietf.org" <core@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [core] Question on draft-fossati-core-publish-option-02
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 20:59:10 -0000

Thank you Akbar for taking the time to review it.

As far as your question:

On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 6:58 PM, Rahman, Akbar
<Akbar.Rahman@interdigital.com> wrote:
> How is a client directed synchronously to go
> towards the delegated Endpoint?  In other words, suppose a client had a
> priori (e.g. at provisioning or startup) obtained the URI of the SEP for the
> resource that it was interested in.

This is a great example, and one which we've not documented in the
current I-D but should have been (next round!).

In this case, I would expect the client doing an href query to the
(multicast) /.well-known/core interface:

REQ: GET /.well-known/core?href=coap://sleepy.example.org/res

and get the following response back from the delegated Proxy (or from
another endpoint who happens to have this information):

RES: 2.05 Content
<coap://sleepy.example.org/res>;
  anchor="coap://proxy.example.org/";
  rel="proxies"

which tells the client that coap://proxy.example.org "proxies" the
requested resource, so that it can then issue its Proxy-URI request
for that resource to said proxy.

> Your I-D is very clear on how the SEP
> can delegate a resource to a delegated Endpoint.  But how would the client,
> in a synchronous manner, know that the resource is no longer at the SEP but
> to go instead to the delegated Endpoint?

I hope my previous example is clear enough.  If you are not satisfied,
please shout :-)

> (I did see your Section 3, Discovery, but this to me seemed to be somehow a
> specific use case and not a general approach.  Apologies if I missed
> something obvious.)

Well, the intention is to make it a general approach, it should not
look like an ad hoc solution :-)

We set an explicit design constraint to reuse the discovery model of
RFC6690 as much as possible -- in line with our aim at providing a
fully "in-protocol" solution to the sleepy problem.
To make RFC6690 a building block that also supports the
sleepy/intermittent scenario, we had to bring in the "proxies" link
relation, that works around some semantic and syntactic limitation of
the "hosts" relation.  Using this new thing, the proxy not only hands
off packets around, but also participates into discovery, by
advertising resources that may be "hidden" to the other side of a CoAP
network.

Cheers