Subject: [core] My endpoint has two addresses

From: Jim Schaad <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 15:14:16 -0700

One of the issues that I just come up with, and might be part of an I don't
care space, is that if an endpoint has two different addresses then the
registration resource cannot have two different addresses associated with
it.  You cannot have two different registration resources with the same
endpoint name.  This means if I want to register both IPv6 and IPv4 (or
other address types) with the same endpoint there is a problem.   I also
just realized that same issue arises with schema.  These only apply if you
want to use the context parameter.  If you are going to supply full URL
addresses to resources then this is doable.  Given that the context
parameter is for space savings, I wonder if some method of dealing with this
should be considered.  Possibly defining some type of context selector or
something?

Jim

---

From: peter van der Stok <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2017 09:28:41 +0200

Hi Jim,

Indeed this is an issue that was also brought up by Dave Thaler, where 
he referred to the multiple types of coap schemes that became possible.

For the moment, we made the model such that and extension to multiple 
contexts is possible, but not yet supported by the RD, given that all 
these extensions are still under discussion,

Peter

Jim Schaad schreef op 2017-09-06 00:14:
> _______________________________________________
> core mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core

---

From: Jim Schaad <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 08:59:27 -0700

One way that I have thought of dealing with this is to extend the check on
endpoint uniqueness from <domain, endpoint> to <domain, endpoint, context>.
The only downside that I can see is that it makes the query on the endpoint
resource slightly more complicated.

Jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: peter van der Stok [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 12:29 AM
> To: Jim Schaad <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [core] My endpoint has two addresses
> 
> Hi Jim,
> 
> Indeed this is an issue that was also brought up by Dave Thaler, where he
> referred to the multiple types of coap schemes that became possible.
> 
these
> extensions are still under discussion,
> 
> Peter
> 
> > One of the issues that I just come up with, and might be part of an I
> > don't care space, is that if an endpoint has two different addresses
> > then the registration resource cannot have two different addresses
> > associated with it.  You cannot have two different registration
> > resources with the same endpoint name.  This means if I want to
> > register both IPv6 and IPv4 (or
> > just realized that same issue arises with schema.  These only apply if
> > you want to use the context parameter.  If you are going to supply
> > full URL addresses to resources then this is doable.  Given that the
> > context parameter is for space savings, I wonder if some method of
> > dealing with this should be considered.  Possibly defining some type
> > of context selector or something?
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >

---

From: Christian Amsüss <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 14:01:11 +0200

Hello Jim,
Hello Bill and Mert,

On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 09:28:41AM +0200, peter van der Stok wrote:
> contexts is possible, but not yet supported by the RD, given that all these

More concretely, this is where I hope that
core-coap-protocol-negotiation will take over. We're deliberately
keeping multiple-base-addresses out of resource-directory (an earlier
state already allowed more than one address) so this can be
comprehensively specified there based on model that contains only the
extension point for it.

Bill and Mert, Jim the issue Jim raised is not fully covered by the
protocol-negotiation draft or what we talked about in Prague, but
involves the choice of an Internet layer when raw addresses are used.
Will we be able to use the mechanisms introduced there in the absence of
hostnames for an IPv4 and an IPv6 addresses (or multiple IPv6
addresses)?

Best regards
Christian

-- 
This may seem a bit weird, but that's okay, because it is weird.
  -- perldata(1) about perl variables