Re: [core] RFC 7252 - 8.2 - Multicast - Request / Response Layer, page 67, top

Klaus Hartke <hartke@projectcool.de> Tue, 31 March 2020 11:47 UTC

Return-Path: <hartke@projectcool.de>
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 59B523A1915 for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 04:47:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 Wym7Bx87apql for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 04:47:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wp382.webpack.hosteurope.de (wp382.webpack.hosteurope.de [IPv6:2a01:488:42:1000:50ed:8597::]) (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 6C1743A1914 for <core@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 04:47:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-f182.google.com ([209.85.222.182]); authenticated by wp382.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) id 1jJFMG-0003nF-Vw; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 13:47:05 +0200
Received: by mail-qk1-f182.google.com with SMTP id l25so22602908qki.7 for <core@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 04:47:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ29hDkm6QBdWaNiCFqGvu+BpEkGD4IkGKdDREfTEU71t/QpGxLm +9x/4PnnOPgLJJtgx+zij6ZXl5qtPsDYtYSdbTQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vs3dfBSCD+HiFVzmEmlFrCIKAMYbMYD8FYQqqnkcxidFuk0oyTHCZdixOdD40GS+Cn+iC0F2DO/Lfs2bNiQIY4=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:a551:: with SMTP id o78mr4350137qke.453.1585655223878; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 04:47:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <580bb0f4-89c4-2d11-b17b-520ddfe89c33@gmx.net> <000501d60452$c96cfa00$5c46ee00$@augustcellars.com> <1e74313a-d258-622f-d43e-ff1fa8f7d06d@gmx.net> <AM5P190MB027536259A44102F7AB9E058FDC80@AM5P190MB0275.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <AM5P190MB027536259A44102F7AB9E058FDC80@AM5P190MB0275.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
From: Klaus Hartke <hartke@projectcool.de>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 13:46:27 +0200
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAAzbHvbeEyws+wVchovoVTK=WutWoHCNcfv8LrpxmshLxJ_w+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAzbHvbeEyws+wVchovoVTK=WutWoHCNcfv8LrpxmshLxJ_w+Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Esko Dijk <esko.dijk@iotconsultancy.nl>
Cc: Achim Kraus <achimkraus@gmx.net>, Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>, "core@ietf.org" <core@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de; hartke@projectcool.de; 1585655228; 4ced671d;
X-HE-SMSGID: 1jJFMG-0003nF-Vw
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/lPHjE2VC3nfzY0U-uwf0F0LwUmo>
Subject: Re: [core] RFC 7252 - 8.2 - Multicast - Request / Response Layer, page 67, top
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 31 Mar 2020 11:47:11 -0000

Esko Dijk wrote:
> However CoAP does define that a Server responds from the same endpoint that received the request, I believe. See below text quotes and analysis.

Yes. In the simple CoAP-over-UDP unicast NoSec case, if a request
message is sent from an endpoint 192.168.0.1:54321 ("client") to an
endpoint 192.168.0.100:5683 ("server"), the response message must be
sent from the endpoint 192.168.0.100:5683 to the endpoint
192.168.0.1:54321.

The response message cannot be sent from any other endpoint, because
then the client couldn't match the incoming message to its pending
request (it would appear to come from a different server). The
response message also cannot be sent to any other endpoint, because
then the client wouldn't get the message (it would be sent to a
different client).

I view multicast messages basically like e-mail mailing lists. E.g.
(IMO): A request message is sent from the endpoint 192.168.0.1:54321
to the special endpoint 224.0.1.187:9999, the message magically shows
up as incoming message at the endpoint 192.168.0.100:5683, and the
response message must be sent from the endpoint 192.168.0.100:5683 to
the endpoint 192.168.0.1:54321.

Klaus