Re: [Rats] EAT Profiles

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Hannes Tschofenig <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > [Hannes] We have created a library that produced an EAT based on our
    > profile and it was not too complex.

You missed the point.
You create *A* library that deals with *your* profile.

So, we need N libraries for N-profiles, and since the EAT document has quite
a large number of possible combinations, each use of EAT will wind up with
its own library.  There will be no reuse, which was the point of doing this work.

    mcr> Okay, so if you want to have the option of having CBOR maps use
    mcr> indefinite arrays and maps, then can give me a technical reason to pick
    mcr> this?

    > [Hannes] This is probably a corner case, which most developers don't
    > care about.

Yes, exactly.
It seems like it would be a SHOULD, with some exception text for some piece
of hardware that Laurence knows about.

    >> * 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.

    mcr> I agree that it's an TEEP issue.

    > [Hannes] Maybe you could post it to the TEEP list.

The EAT question is what a profile should say here.

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-