Re: [Rats] EAT Profiles

[Henk Birkholz <[e-mail]>]

Hi Hannes,

two comments in-line:

On 19.09.22 13:02, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> Hi Michael,
> 
> Hannes Tschofenig <[e-mail]> wrote:
>      > I do not see a problem with the EAT profile in the TEEP specification.
> 
> There isn't any problem with it.
> It's not *wrong* for TEEP.
> I claim that TEEP is having to do too much work.
> 
> [Hannes] I didn't see that work.
> 
> I also claim that the uncertainty created by EAT's too many options means that libraries will be too complex and too hard to test.
> 
> [Hannes] We have created a library that produced an EAT based on our profile and it was not too complex.

Questions that come to my mind are: What was the benefit of using the 
interoperable standard that EAT is aspiring to be in the context of your 
library? In other words, why was it better to implement EAT instead of a 
protocol specific CBOR message?

> 
>      > I also have no problem with the EAT specification to define a list of
>      > items to think about when creating such a profile.  I am fine with
>      > having EAT leave options for profiles.
> 
> Okay, so if you want to have the option of having CBOR maps use indefinite arrays and maps, then can give me a technical reason to pick this?
> 
> [Hannes] This is probably a corner case, which most developers don't care about.
> 
>      > * Would it be useful to reference profiles by number (rather than
>      > URLs)? Probably so.
> 
> It seems like we ought to have an optional registry, and if someone wants to use a URI, then fine.

Not sure on the URI part really, but if there is enough support for 
it... How would EAT ensure interoperability, if we allow for 'any URI as 
profile identifier' use outside the 'custom/local/experimental' scope? 
Or would that automatically imply that scope?

> 
> [Hannes] That would be fine for me.
> 
> 
>      > * Is it OK that the TEEP profile of EAT does not
>      > mandate certain claims? Maybe it should do so, but this would be a
>      > topic to discuss in TEEP not in RATS.
> 
> I agree that it's an TEEP issue.
> 
> [Hannes] Maybe you could post it to the TEEP list.
> 
> Ciao
> Hannes

Viele Grüße,

Henk

> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RATS mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats