Thank you for your comments!
Darrel Miller via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> be. The biggest concern I have with the document is that it raises the
> possibility that the objectives of the document could be addressed
> using a "RESTful service" but then provides no reasoning for why a DNS
> solution was chosen instead.
We could have gone with a RESTful solution for the Control Channel, but the
infrastructure (the DM) needs the Synchronization channel to be DNS.
So implementers found that having two mechanisms and protocols and security
and ... to be more annoying than one.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
