On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 11:11 PM, weigengyu <weigengyu@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi，
The question is not very different from the UDP to UDP proxying case.Something is different.
If a request came in via a UDP CON (which is the equivalent of using a reliable transport protocol),If it keeps the semantics end-to-end, the proxy just forwards the message.
should the proxy use CON or NON for the forwarded request?
If it has the semantics hop-by-hop, the proxy can decide what type of message to transfer.
My interpretation for 5.2.3 in RFC7252 is CoAP layer can ignore the preference of applications and alter the message type by its decisions. It seems to me proxies can choose message types as they want.
--
Yoshi
Gengyu WEI
Network Technology Center
School of Computer
Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications
-----原始邮件----- From: Carsten Bormann
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 2:01 PM
To: weigengyu
Cc: Yoshifumi Nishida ; Brian Raymor ; tsv-art@xxxxxxxx ; draft-ietf-core-coap-tcp-tls@ietf.org ; core@xxxxxxxx ; ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [core] TSV-ART review of draft-ietf-core-coap-tcp-tls-07
On May 2, 2017, at 07:31, weigengyu <weigengyu@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The problem is when the C2C Proxy have got a message form the CoAP/TCP side,
how the Proxy make a decision to delivery CON or NON message carrying CoAP over UDP?
The question is not very different from the UDP to UDP proxying case.
If a request came in via a UDP CON (which is the equivalent of using a reliable transport protocol), should the proxy use CON or NON for the forwarded request?
I’d say, in both cases, CON should be the default way of forwarding the reliable request.
But there may be specific cases where a NON may be appropriate — CoAP does not provide the client with a way to control the proxy here.
Is that a problem? Tell me more about your use case.
Grüße, Carsten