DOTS_protocol_specification_cheat_sheet.md refers to Content-Type option for CoAP while it should be called Content-Format. The content format is specified as application/cbor in the doc as well as in the source code but draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel specifies application/dots+cbor.
The URI-Path seems to be incorrect at least the cheat sheet as it specifies /.well-known/dots/v1/mitigate while the draft specifies /.well-known/dots/mitigate. The client code seems to be using the proper format but the server doesn't exactly verify it. By a quick look, it seems the server just looks if mitigate is defined in the URI, which isn't probably wrong as the draft mandates a certain order of options. To me it would sound reasonable to have versioned paths, too bad it's not currently allowed in the draft.
DOTS_protocol_specification_cheat_sheet.mdrefers toContent-Typeoption for CoAP while it should be calledContent-Format. The content format is specified asapplication/cborin the doc as well as in the source code butdraft-ietf-dots-signal-channelspecifiesapplication/dots+cbor.The URI-Path seems to be incorrect at least the cheat sheet as it specifies
/.well-known/dots/v1/mitigatewhile the draft specifies/.well-known/dots/mitigate. The client code seems to be using the proper format but the server doesn't exactly verify it. By a quick look, it seems the server just looks ifmitigateis defined in the URI, which isn't probably wrong as the draft mandates a certain order of options. To me it would sound reasonable to have versioned paths, too bad it's not currently allowed in the draft.