Re: [core] feedback on resource-directory and mirror-proxy (and base) drafts

[Zach Shelby <[e-mail]>]

On Mar 9, 2012, at 6:59 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:

>> When talking about the value of the sequence of options, it is a bit more intuitive to instead talk about the implied URI.  Notated in a HTTP header style:
>> 
>> Location: /foo/bar
>> 
>> is a short form of »two Location-Path options "foo" and "bar"«.
>> 
>> Yes, we need to get consistent here -- either use that notation and explain it or use the actual option values.  I still like to talk about /.well-known/core etc. instead of saying [{"Location-Path": ".well-known"}, {"Location-Path": "core"}] (or, worse, "\x6B.well-known\x04core").
>> 
> 
> You can certainly still talk about paths such as /.well-known/core in the text, but if you actually write an example that has lines like Location: /.well-known/core that is always going to be confusing, no matter what explanations you might add to the text. The point of an example is to show the real messages and attributes, and shorthand notations there is misleading. IMO, of course.

The RD draft is agnostic to whether CoAP or HTTP is used, thus the examples are as generic as possible. I think in CoRE it might be good to write up a draft that recommends a notation for specifying or giving examples of generic REST exchanges in drafts (other than the use of WADL). 

Zach

-- 
Zach Shelby, Chief Nerd, Sensinode Ltd.
http://www.sensinode.com
http://zachshelby.org  - My blog "On the Internet of Things"
http://6lowpan.net - My book "6LoWPAN: The Wireless Embedded Internet"
Mobile: [phone]