-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
How would we use DNR? #22
Comments
The draft for that is currently discussed (last call) in the add working group: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-add-dnr/ |
Yes, you reference that. |
Indeed, there seems to be some extra work required to make this work with DoC. From a quick read-through (specifically Section 3.1.5 of -13 of that draft) I'd say at least an ALPN needs to be defined (though how to do that with OSCORE or if it is even required in that case, I am not sure). The Maybe this option is only suitable if one chooses to use CoAPS, as it seems very tailored to TLS and for OSCORE (or unencrypted CoAP use) we need another way (e.g. as mentioned a resource directory). |
After we resolved the ALPN issue in DNRs https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/yFHfHUHDDwh0HANDJEqj_TmkiMc/, there is still the question on how to represent DoC (or CoAP services in general) in a SVCB record (the format of which would provide the DNR Service Parameters as mentioned in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-add-dnr#section-3.1.5). To summarize the findings: While a
Given all that, and the fact that this also may effect CoAP services as a whole, not just DoC, I see the potential for further draft(s) that would define the Service Parameters for the existing CoAP transports, that we than need to reference in what is currently Section 3 of the DoC draft. Do you agree? |
We have now the DDR / DNR RFCs: I was also wondering if these should be referenced and how discovery of DoC service might be done using such mechanisms. |
There is now https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lenders-core-dnr/, which is referenced as of -06 of the DoC draft. |
I'm not sure this is defined yet -- is it intended to be?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: