Re: [core] #397 (coap-tcp-tls): CON usage with CoAP over TCP

"weigengyu" <weigengyu@bupt.edu.cn> Tue, 12 April 2016 05:37 UTC

Return-Path: <weigengyu@bupt.edu.cn>
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 0654212E45C for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 22:37:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.458
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.458 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.439] 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 0hdw_4CPsOQ9 for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 22:37:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.bupt.edu.cn (mx1.bupt.edu.cn [211.68.68.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F5D312E45B for <core@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 22:37:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.bupt.edu.cn (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.bupt.edu.cn (AnyMacro(G7)) with SMTP id B85C019F3D8 for <core@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:37:20 +0800 (HKT)
Received: from WeiGengyuPC (unknown [114.255.40.27]) by mx1.bupt.edu.cn (AnyMacro(G7)) with ESMTPA id 3046219F390; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:37:20 +0800 (HKT)
Message-ID: <5C3EF16A6E1B441C8DC1BC2A8AF94F22@WeiGengyuPC>
From: "weigengyu" <weigengyu@bupt.edu.cn>
To: <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>
References: <065.b1a2e6aa9c5600bacf4cf8ae258078b0@trac.tools.ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <065.b1a2e6aa9c5600bacf4cf8ae258078b0@trac.tools.ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:37:28 +0800
Organization: BUPT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="utf-8"; reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 16.4.3528.331
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V16.4.3528.331
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/gsjJ73Dp6vz6smV_U4r1oNOjkvI>
Cc: core@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [core] #397 (coap-tcp-tls): CON usage with CoAP over TCP
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 05:37:28 -0000

Hi,

The same situation is when a CON message goes through a C2C proxy.
If that C2C proxy has one port with CoAP over UDP and one port with CoAP 
over TCP,
the COM MSG should be converted to NON MSG by the current draft.

Regards,

Gengyu WEI
Network Technology Center
School of Computer
Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications
-----原始邮件----- 
From: core issue tracker
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 9:46 AM
To: draft-ietf-core-coap-tcp-tls@ietf.org ; Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net
Cc: core@ietf.org
Subject: [core] #397 (coap-tcp-tls): CON usage with CoAP over TCP

#397: CON usage with CoAP over TCP

In http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/core/current/msg06988.html Timothy
wrote:

----------------------------------------------------------

In section 4 Message Format says:

The ’Message Length’ field is a 16-bit unsigned integer in network byte
order. It provides the length of the subsequent CoAP message (including
the CoAP header but excluding this message length field) in bytes (so its
minimum value is 2). The Message ID and message type are meaningless and
thus elided (what would have been the message type field is always filled
with what would be the code for NON (01)).

What would happen if an Application where to place a CON in the message
type field. Based on my reading of this text I would expect the message
type from the  application to be ignored and the transport to put in a NON
message. Is that correct?

-- 
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter:                           |      Owner:  draft-ietf-core-coap-
  Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net          |  tcp-tls@ietf.org
     Type:  protocol defect          |     Status:  new
Priority:  major                    |  Milestone:
Component:  coap-tcp-tls             |    Version:
Severity:  Active WG Document       |   Keywords:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/core/trac/ticket/397>
core <https://tools.ietf.org/core/>

_______________________________________________
core mailing list
core@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core