Re: [core] Handling potentially-large resource representations
Zach Shelby <zach@sensinode.com> Thu, 09 September 2010 10:46 UTC
Return-Path: <zach@sensinode.com>
X-Original-To: core@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 185D43A6A5B for <core@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Sep 2010 03:46:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.379
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.379 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.220, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pITEdRycnuEk for <core@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Sep 2010 03:46:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from auth-smtp.nebula.fi (auth-smtp.nebula.fi [217.30.180.105]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 136EF3A6A63 for <core@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Sep 2010 03:46:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [62.145.172.52] ([62.145.172.52]) (authenticated bits=0) by auth-smtp.nebula.fi (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id o89AkqQo012415 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 9 Sep 2010 13:46:53 +0300
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail-11-779336558"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
From: Zach Shelby <zach@sensinode.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinmHa1wdTAKMbvjrCFgVc6speHkKc=8C07372Hh@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 13:46:54 +0300
Message-Id: <83357A84-4278-4E7B-961A-A12380FF01E5@sensinode.com>
References: <AANLkTi=J0SrYUHA2Mxcq43M6p-Vbz0=0-oaPC2-UTatK@mail.gmail.com> <AE751E7C-F24C-43EE-A10B-22445350A743@sensinode.com> <AANLkTinmHa1wdTAKMbvjrCFgVc6speHkKc=8C07372Hh@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Bigot <pab@peoplepowerco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Cc: core <core@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [core] Handling potentially-large resource representations
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <core.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/core>
List-Post: <mailto:core@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 10:46:33 -0000
On Sep 8, 2010, at 7:03 PM, Peter Bigot wrote: > Block is really messy once you get into the details, but if we only > permit the server to send the option when it's present in the request, > and we require ETag to be included in every response message that > includes the block option, I think these problems can be avoided. Sounds like reasonable advice to me, but I'll defer to the authors of coap-block to take this into account. Zach -- Zach Shelby, Chief Nerd, Sensinode Ltd. http://zachshelby.org - My blog "On the Internet of Things" http://6lowpan.net - My book "6LoWPAN: The Wireless Embedded Internet" Mobile: +358 40 7796297
- Re: [core] Handling potentially-large resource re… Zach Shelby
- [core] Handling potentially-large resource repres… Peter Bigot
- Re: [core] Handling potentially-large resource re… Peter Bigot
- Re: [core] Handling potentially-large resource re… Zach Shelby