Re: [Yot] questions concerning sid value assignments

[peter van der Stok <[e-mail]>]

Michael Richardson schreef op 2018-02-19 19:23:
> peter van der Stok <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     > I created an example for myself by heart. Can you see if my
> memory is still
>     > correct?
> 
>     > I assume a server with one voucher module and one cwt-voucher 
> module;
>     > The augment with grouping is used for SID allocation.
>     > The diagnostic notation is used for CBOR.
> 
> Cool...
> 
>     > {
>     > 1001000: {
>     > +3 : "2016-10-07T19:31:42Z",
> 
>     > A returned cwt-voucher may look like:
> 
>     > {
>     > 1001030: {
>     > -27 : "2016-10-07T19:31:42Z",
> 
> It took me a moment to figure out that 1001000+3 == 1001030-27.
> That's exactly what I would think should happen if we have SIDs 
> allocate for
> the underlying ietf-voucher object which we then repeat.
> 
> There is a concern if the gap between 1001000 and 1001030 was larger!
> -27 is fortunately still a 1-byte CBOR integer.  Otherwise, we get into 
> 2
> byte CBOR integers and even three byte ones.  Since the delta is 
> relative to
> the enclosing value, not the previous value, we can't even amortize the 
> gap.
> 
> This is an argument to not re-using the values.

Well, that concludes the exercise for me.
Now we can make the examples and fix the cwt-voucher SID allocation

> 
>     > Both can be identified nicely though the presence of 1001030 or 
> 1001000
> 
>     > However, when using comi to return the value of for example:
>     > ietf-voucher/created-on, or
>     > iet-cwt-voucher/created-on
> 
>     > The request for both is identical:
> 
>     > GET //example-server.com/c/1001003
> 
>     > The server does not know which one to return.
>     > Did I miss something?