[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [wakaama-dev] COAP over TCP/TLS
|
Hi Bert,
That's a great development. I'd opt for a run-time switch. My personal
preference would be to indicate which underlying transport CoAP messages
are conveyed over, by looking at the URI scheme.
Ideally, the resource identification (and by extension, the registration
or bootstrapping interface) could be achieved by providing the URI (or
URL) such as "coap://bootstrap.server.com:5683" or
"coap+tcp://bootstrap.server:5683". This then paves the way for
coap+tcps or other transports for the future, from a client.
I've not yet studied the Wakaama server code to understand storing the
transport information (if any). I suppose that would be necessary if the
LWM2M servers decide to support multiple transports so that different
client CoAP transports can be registered or used.
Therefore I'm ok with simpler (but already working) solutions too.
Regards,
Bill
Bert Kleewein wrote:
Hi All,
We are currently working to modify Wakaama/Erbium to support COAP over
TCP/TLS (following
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-core-coap-tcp-tls-01, but I
assume we will upgrade to
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-core-coap-tcp-tls-02)
Our internal proof-of-concept currently chooses between UDP and TCP via
compile-time switch (#define). This was chosen as the path of least
resistance, and it has both advantages and disadvantages.
My question is this: What is the community preference for switching
between TCP and UDP? Would a run-time switch (via the lwm2m_binding_t
enum) or a build-time switch (via #define) be preferred?
Thanks,
-Bert
_______________________________________________
wakaama-dev mailing list
wakaama-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wakaama-dev
