Subject: Re: [core] CoRE Resource Directory draft updates

From: Christian Amsüss <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 11:12:37 +0200

On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 08:56:30PM +0000, Rahman, Akbar wrote:
> 4.       In section 4.1 (Finding a Directory Server):
> 
> ·         It states, “… directory servers are found by simply sending POST requests to that well-known multicast address (details TBD)”
> 
> ·         Should it be GET instead of POST?

In the context of the section being 4.1, it makes sense (as 4 is about
simple discovery, where the client just POSTs to .well-known/core). It
might be a good idea to move it ouf of that section (and generalize the
method used), as it is used in 5.1 just as well.

Best regards
Christian Amsüss

-- 
Christian Amsüss                      | Energy Harvesting Solutions GmbH
founder, system architect             | headquarter:
mailto:[email-masked]  | Arbeitergasse 15, A-4400 Steyr
tel:+43-664-97-90-6-39                | http://www.energyharvesting.at/
                                      | ATU68476614

---

From: Christian Amsüss <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 11:28:30 +0200

On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 02:15:47PM -0700, Michael Koster wrote:
> 1. Remove the simple registration described in the beginning of
> section 4. Unless there is a strong specific use case, the basic need
> can be easily handled using a configuration tool.

I'm using simple registration and find it very handy in sensors that are
not capable of parsing link-format, but are hidden behind NAT (typically
but not exclusively cellular networks) or otherwise dynamic IPs, so a
configuration tool is of no help there.

Best regards
Christian Amsüss