[core] draft-ietf-core-coap-tcp-tls-01.pdf
"Carey, Timothy (Nokia - US)" <timothy.carey@nokia.com> Fri, 01 April 2016 10:32 UTC
Return-Path: <timothy.carey@nokia.com>
X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFAF512D53C for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 03:32:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.92
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.92 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 70G-ERSrvsjh for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 03:32:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-us.alcatel-lucent.com (us-hpswa-esg-02.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.18.30]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99E3E12D0B4 for <core@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 03:32:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from us70uumx4.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.245.18.16]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 182ECCA09C626 for <core@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 10:32:38 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from us70uusmtp4.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (us70uusmtp4.zam.alcatel-lucent.com [135.5.2.66]) by us70uumx4.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id u31AWdKV004581 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for <core@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 10:32:39 GMT
Received: from US70TWXCHHUB04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (us70twxchhub04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com [135.5.2.36]) by us70uusmtp4.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id u31AWc39024644 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <core@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 10:32:39 GMT
Received: from US70UWXCHMBA05.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.10.148]) by US70TWXCHHUB04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.5.2.36]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 06:32:39 -0400
From: "Carey, Timothy (Nokia - US)" <timothy.carey@nokia.com>
To: "core@ietf.org WG" <core@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-core-coap-tcp-tls-01.pdf
Thread-Index: AdGMAc8fXF7ashssRByCfwbBRtO6Ug==
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2016 10:32:37 +0000
Message-ID: <9966516C6EB5FC4381E05BF80AA55F77012A61EDC4@US70UWXCHMBA05.zam.alcatel-lucent.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.5.27.16]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9966516C6EB5FC4381E05BF80AA55F77012A61EDC4US70UWXCHMBA0_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/w1Tov_H4U40BhxRkdKJGgE_5454>
Subject: [core] draft-ietf-core-coap-tcp-tls-01.pdf
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <core.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 01 Apr 2016 10:32:45 -0000
Team, In section 4 Message Format says: The 'Message Length' field is a 16-bit unsigned integer in network byte order. It provides the length of the subsequent CoAP message (including the CoAP header but excluding this message length field) in bytes (so its minimum value is 2). The Message ID and message type are meaningless and thus elided (what would have been the message type field is always filled with what would be the code for NON (01)). What would happen if an Application where to place a CON in the message type field. Based on my reading of this text I would expect the message type from the application to be ignored and the transport to put in a NON message. Is that correct? BR, Tim
- [core] draft-ietf-core-coap-tcp-tls-01.pdf Carey, Timothy (Nokia - US)