Subject: Re: [core] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-core-http-mapping-11

From: "Fossati, Thomas (Nokia - GB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 14:07:48 +0000

Peter, Carsten: thanks for the suggestions.

I think I'm going with Carsten's proposal, which seems to be the safest
from the point of view of the requirements on future specs:

   This document describes HTTP mappings that apply to protocol elements
   defined in the base CoAP specification [RFC7252].  It is up to CoAP
   protocol extensions (new methods, response codes, options, content-
   formats) to describe their own HTTP mappings, if applicable.

Cheers, t

On 30/06/2016 11:44, "core on behalf of Carsten Bormann"
<[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:
>Fossati, Thomas (Nokia - GB) wrote:
>> Peter, Carsten: is it OK for you as well?  Or do you want to propose a
>> different wording?
>
>I'm not sure this is the place to make mandates about what other
>specifications will be.
>
>I'd rather say that this document describes base CoAP (insert
>references) and it is up to extensions... to describe their HTTP mapping.
>
>(Specific example: I don't think we should nail down an HTTP mapping
>for FETCH/PATCH at the same time we nail down the CoAP side.  Just as we
>nailed down RFC 7252 before completing the HTTP mapping informational
>document.)
>
>Grüße, Carsten
>
>_______________________________________________
>core mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core