Re: [core] Questions/comments on draft-ietf-core-dynlink-02

Michael Koster <michaeljohnkoster@gmail.com> Mon, 13 March 2017 13:08 UTC

Return-Path: <michaeljohnkoster@gmail.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 877ED1295E1 for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 06:08:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 Cp_zsPC4Ur6I for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 06:08:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot0-x22f.google.com (mail-ot0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D76141295E7 for <core@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 06:08:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id i1so111959373ota.3 for <core@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 06:08:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references :to; bh=9tbAk1ZmEIqLD37cD5EPj44PG9fyDpwXK70gZwHhatU=; b=FyDWXlo39h52g0T7t5cb3sJV2fD0ZwczzmU5T/JVNEx2oBzKxutgGlJHzsq+MOHmqK o3IFeQqR1GwT3UHD4UYJemvJ/CNG4A02mB7bunPHKWxovQ6vXyHhZmysP1qIonKVb7J2 n0SA5ubwTkE5i6pJOGu2OqAaF6vDaLzVKfOUuYx5Ev9NhQo3VkAxPTcVibIHkiJWN6Qx qx8nLn57JURycQiHFK6h4hzYtC/0qbH9lLykHpjpJANQq37W2ZV8YXaocUdXjB/FH2vd SNMu/RQk3QXAjaBidfc64YFRy1aL37mLiawIIfMpFO4p4hkNYjSzO4KLlOVAPSWN7W5c sFZQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=9tbAk1ZmEIqLD37cD5EPj44PG9fyDpwXK70gZwHhatU=; b=BgXvnZQ9cgvB/FWzwNJ+xbpXROUZooA7FbyucD95AAT1JtgCJGDEHtAsYOgMyXgvz4 XTQcKx8XNMM1wyefbY7v06fW/joQV2UMflu2A3jqvCTVjj852MiOYEjdOvJNLx7cd46G P7GZrTCxwn7pmwrFwVdTjWzdiGwFWBflo/oSeKk2ERBjrMlAZ/seylRvDk8MuwodsoYo WNuphTbXuyTLIW5cu/ad+5ImUOT5QjkABGNSJKKLBI2MVYNasz131pntWhOYYFITpw8t Np6d6V+pdw+8YrCPMIr/4G5t+NGYqC7XSYUlYwKquFA+Hm9HFGDbSlVGSoG+3abrE6Cm oNYw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39kzPsZmruxT4+w3nI1gpMSmq1hA7fQxIdXk5zvQLWLzlKujauwUfaUJcu8X/8V/HA==
X-Received: by 10.157.49.47 with SMTP id e44mr16417555otc.129.1489410492254; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 06:08:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.11] (108-201-184-41.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net. [108.201.184.41]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t8sm7986742oib.23.2017.03.13.06.08.11 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 13 Mar 2017 06:08:11 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_DC2C98F6-0C19-4E5B-B2C9-729FA39677F4"
From: Michael Koster <michaeljohnkoster@gmail.com>
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
In-Reply-To: <D6026AC0-561A-4C36-A319-06EB04FA835A@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 06:08:09 -0700
Message-Id: <A22E2CEC-6408-44BA-AC68-96A008783129@gmail.com>
References: <zarafa.58c28563.565a.4a1c907d21bf17bc@za.u-blox.com> <D6026AC0-561A-4C36-A319-06EB04FA835A@gmail.com>
To: Mojan Mohajer <mojan.mohajer@u-blox.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/kQQe2mwlo5Bd2rEsMSp6wvtPqrI>
Cc: core <core@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [core] Questions/comments on draft-ietf-core-dynlink-02
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: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 13:08:14 -0000

To summarize, I recommend that we change 4.2 to specify using observe attributes as query parameters in the OBSERVE operation to which they apply.

We could optionally make them writeable as a single set of attributes to apply to all observations of that resource.

If we want to make the single set readable, we will need to add more specification. about the returned representation.

Best regards,

Michael


> On Mar 13, 2017, at 5:58 AM, Michael Koster <michaeljohnkoster@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Mojan,
> 
> I think this is the default behavior for OMA LWM2M using the "Write Attributes" operation. The effect is to provide a single set of notification parameters for all observe operations on that resource.
> 
> I believe that we improve on that pattern and allow each observe request to have its own attributes, set by including query parameters in the GET operation.
> 
> Section 4.2 also indicates that they are readable, but it's not clear to me how that would work? In what format are they returned, also as query parameters? These could be made readable (and updateable) througn a special CoRE Interface, but we would need to specify how the content format of these works vs. the content format of the resource state.
> 
> LWM2M could be described in this draft as a legacy pattern.
> 
> Does this make sense?
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Michael
> 
> 
>> On Mar 10, 2017, at 2:52 AM, Mojan Mohajer <mojan.mohajer@u-blox.com <mailto:mojan.mohajer@u-blox.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> 2) Section 4.2 which covers resource observation attributes (pmin, pmax, st, …) states that that: …”These query parameters MUST be treated as resources that are read using GET and updated using PUT, and MUST NOT be included in the Observe request” ….
>> However, looking at newly added Annex A which provides observation examples, these observation attributes are passed as query parameters of a Get request with Observe option set to 0. There seems to be some contradiction between the text in section 4.2 and the example in Annex A.
>