Closed cabo closed 2 months ago
From interim: Let's add examples.
So is coap://path/////
different from coap://path/
?
So is
coap://path/////
different fromcoap://path/
?
Yes, and we have to clarify this.
The only place where we suppress the empty path component is between coap://authority/
and coap://authority
-- these mean the same in CoAP, and the first is the one that is reconstituted from the CoAP Options.
Additional trailing slashes do always count.
OK - taking it further, coap://host/path//////
and coap://host/path/
are different (which is was I meant to write in the first place - been a long day).
So is
coap://path/////
different fromcoap://path/
?
Yes it is -- or at least, a server may make the distinction.
A server may also not make the distinction between them, or apply other simplifications for itself (like, be case-insensitive). I'd personally recommend against doing that, because client authors who only test with a single server might miss bugs: And clients do have to make the distinction.
I don't like it as well. But need to understand potential consequences.
From interim: Let's add examples.
Do we add examples to corrclar or to the formal addition to RFC7252?
I added some examples and merged -- we can reopen the issue if it isn't completely covered yet.
Use text of Err4895 for a an additional note about trailing slashes in URI paths