Subject: [core] #221: Occasionally sending CON is not just a security consideration

From: "core issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 15:37:05 -0000

#221: Occasionally sending CON is not just a security consideration

 Cullen Jennings notes (msg03073a):

 Imagine a server that always sends non confirmable requests. Does it send
 forever? Even after client crashes and a new device that is not CoAP aware
 gets the same IP address?

 ->

 This is currently discussed in the security considerations, but only for
 NoSec mode.
 The need to at least occasionally intersperse CONs needs to be discussed
 earlier (and explained in more detail, msg03073i).

 Another reason for sending a CON at certain points:

 Just sending NON for a long time does not guarantee eventual consistency.

-- 
-----------------------------+---------------------------------------
 Reporter:  cabo@…           |      Owner:  draft-ietf-core-observe@…
     Type:  protocol defect  |     Status:  new
 Priority:  minor            |  Milestone:  post-WGLC-1
Component:  observe          |    Version:  observe-05
 Severity:  In WG Last Call  |   Keywords:
-----------------------------+---------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/core/trac/ticket/221>
core <http://tools.ietf.org/core/>

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 14:35:24 -0600

I might not understand the full Pledge proposal but it seems like it would also address this problem. If we go with a solution of sending period CON, that needs to be normatively specified in the draft. 

On Apr 20, 2012, at 9:37 , core issue tracker wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> core mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core