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
- [core] #397 (coap-tcp-tls): CON usage with CoAP o… core issue tracker
- Re: [core] #397 (coap-tcp-tls): CON usage with Co… weigengyu
- Re: [core] #397 (coap-tcp-tls): CON usage with Co… core issue tracker