Open chrysn opened 5 years ago
I think that with good wording of the relation types, we can just use coap+x URIs without paths. Even though we'd probably recommend it, terms like in the strawman proposal could even be used with paths (think of the proxy as a "function set" that defines all resources "under" it, and that could run on a sub-path or even proxy only the things behind a sub-path).
Keeping this open for further consideration, but I'd stick with "we can just use the URIs as they are".
Currently we can identify arbitrary resources on a CoAP server (
coap://address/path
), but not the CoAP server behind that address itself.This will hit us when we want to express a statement like HTTP's
Alt-Svc: coap+tcp=:5683
in a Web Link like<coap+tcp://same-host:5683>;rel=alt-svc
It'd be possible to use plain
coap://address
there, but that already means "the resource at path / on that server" as well, and using the same term for different things can be confusing.Other areas where the same question comes up: