Re: [wakaama-dev] COAP over TCP/TLS

[Bert Kleewein <bertk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks.  I had only considered clients up until this point, but server scenarios are also interesting.  The more I think about it, the more I think that a runtime switch is the way to go.

-----Original Message-----
From: wakaama-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wakaama-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bill Silverajan
Sent: Monday, May 9, 2016 11:45 PM
To: wakaama-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2ftools
> .ietf.org%2fhtml%2fdraft-ietf-core-coap-tcp-tls-01&data=01%7c01%7cbert
> k%40microsoft.com%7c41935800062a4c6fb8a508d3789eafc7%7c72f988bf86f141a
> f91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=QPsuGbtIdO6MHtzyzEfKpc7Mhp8kRheuuJ5K6JGb1%
> 2f0%3d, but I assume we will upgrade to
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2ftools
> .ietf.org%2fhtml%2fdraft-ietf-core-coap-tcp-tls-02&data=01%7c01%7cbert
> k%40microsoft.com%7c41935800062a4c6fb8a508d3789eafc7%7c72f988bf86f141a
> f91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=GPoRgFO9pzCmMFH4fiC%2bs1nQRMbme0OIyz3AUWCL
> f6Q%3d)
>
>
>
> 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fdev.e
> clipse.org%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2fwakaama-dev&data=01%7c01%7cbertk%40m
> icrosoft.com%7c41935800062a4c6fb8a508d3789eafc7%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab
> 2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=UMD99XdmVRF0aIAXRC%2bJ7UrCXtsUJxUaL9wjbCV%2fIaM
> %3d
>
_______________________________________________
wakaama-dev mailing list
wakaama-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fdev.eclipse.org%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2fwakaama-dev&data=01%7c01%7cbertk%40microsoft.com%7c41935800062a4c6fb8a508d3789eafc7%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=UMD99XdmVRF0aIAXRC%2bJ7UrCXtsUJxUaL9wjbCV%2fIaM%3d