5.3.1 Register / should the object instances contain instances of LWM2M Securtiy Objects

[boaks]

According the TS the registration contains

"The list of Objects supported and Object Instances available on the LWM2M Client". 

That list for the example client of Appendix F) is:

</1/0>, </1/1>, </2/0>, </2/1>, </2/2>, </3/0>, </4/0>, </5>

Appendix F lists 3 instances of LWM2M Security Object (/0/0,/0/1, and /0/2), but they are not contained in that list. So:

1. should the LWM2M Security Object be included in the registration list? 2.a. if not, could "except the LWM2M Security Object and Instances" be added to the TS to clarify it?
   2.b. if they should be included, could </0/0>,</0/1>,</0/2>, added to the list in TS to clarify it?

[fdur]

I think that </0/0>,</0/1>,</0/2> list does not need to be included in the list. Object 0 can be read and write by the bootstrap server and, from my point of view, the DM server does not need to have access to values from object 0

I agree to take into account point 2.a

[boaks]

Thanks for your answer and vote for 2.a. (it's also my favorite :-) ).

"Object 0 can be read and write by the bootstrap server"

Hm a bootstrap server is only able to write something, the read is not specified.

[fdur]

You're right ... I answered too quickly :): a bootstrap server is only able to write something No server could be able to read object 0

[boaks]

OMA-TS-LightweightM2M-V1_0-20160407-C

still not clarified.

[ThGarnier]

Yes all these aspects have-to/will be fixed soon :-) Thanks

[ThGarnier]

The July TS1.0 draft explicitly says Object 0 (Security) must not be part of the registration objects list (in line with the 2.a proposal) => to be closed

[boaks]

Fixed by OMA-TS-LightweightM2M-V1_0-20160711-D.