Re: [Yot] questions concerning sid value assignments

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

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.

    > 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?


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