Subject: [core] Removing entries from CoRE RD

From: Alessandro Ludovici <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:09:44 +0100

Dear List, 

I have a comment about the removal of RD entries
specified in section 5.5 of draft-shelby-core-resource-directory-04. 

The removal request interface defined by the draft is specified as
follows: 

 Method: DELETE 

 URI Template: /{+location}

At present,
the removal request has the effects of removing the whole registration
of an endpoint. However, an endpoint could have many resources
registered at the same location. If it wishes to remove only one or more
resources but maintains the remaining it can't.  

I propose to enrich
the removal request interface by allowing an endpoint to send the
removal parameter of one or multiple resource in CoRE Link Format. If a
removal request contains a payload in CoRE Link Format the RD will
remove only the resources that the payload specifies. Otherwise, the RD
will remove the whole registration of the endpoint. 

Regards, 

--

Alessandro Ludovici
Wireless Network Group(WNG), 
Department of
Telematic Engineering, 
Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, 
C/Jordi
Girona 1-3, Mòdul C3, 08034 Barcelona, Spain; 
E-Mail:
[email-masked] 
Tel.: +34-93-401-70-41; Fax:
+34-93-401-10-58

---

From: Antonio Jara <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:18:25 +0100

Dear Alessandro,

If you want to modify the ep, then sends an update. I guess is simpler  
than partial removes, that could create inconsistencies easily...

Best regards,
Antonio J. Jara

---

From: Alessandro Ludovici <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:31:37 +0100

Dear Antonio, 

I don't think that using update requests would be
simpler than using a remove request. How does the endpoint specifies
that it wishes to perform a removal in an update request? It could be
confusing for the RD as well as it could create inconsistency. Instead,
a remove request would be more straightforward and helps to avoid
confusion. 

Best Regards, 

Alessandro 

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:18:25
+0100, Antonio Jara wrote: 

> If you want to
modify the ep, then sends an update. I guess is simpler 
> than partial
removes, that could create inconsistencies easily...
> Best
regards,
> Antonio J. Jara
> 
> Quoting Alessandro Ludovici :
> 
>> Dear
List, I have a comment about the removal of RD entries specified in
section 5.5 of draft-shelby-core-resource-directory-04. The removal
request interface defined by the draft is specified as follows: Method:
DELETE URI Template: /{+location} At present, the removal request has
the effects of removing the whole registration of an endpoint. However,
an endpoint could have many resources registered at the same location.
If it wishes to remove only one or more resources but maintains the
remaining it can't. I propose to enrich the removal request interface by
allowing an endpoint to send the removal parameter of one or multiple
resource in CoRE Link Format. If a removal request contains a payload in
CoRE Link Format the RD will remove only the resources that the payload
specifies. Otherwise, the RD will remove the whole registration of the
endpoint. Regards, -- Alessandro Ludovici Wireless Network Group(WNG),
Department of Telematic Engineering, Universitat Politècnica de
Catalunya, C/Jordi Girona 1-3, Mòdul C3, 08034 Barcelona, Spain; E-Mail:
[email-masked] [1] Tel.: +34-93-401-70-41; Fax:
+34-93-401-10-58

Links:
------
[1]
mailto:[email-masked]
[2]
mailto:[email-masked]

---

From: Antonio Jara <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:52:20 +0100

Dear Alessandro,

 From my understanding update re-write the content of the ep, with the  
defined payload content.

For that reason, if you overwrite an ep description with less  
resources, you are indicating that that ep now has only available the  
indicated resources in the update.

Regards,
Antonio J. Jara

---

From: Alessandro Ludovici <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:03:00 +0100

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:52:20 +0100, Antonio Jara wrote: 

> From my
understanding update re-write the content of the ep, with the defined
payload content.  

Yes, it is. 

>For that reason, if you overwrite an
ep description with less resources, you are indicating that that ep now
has only available the indicated resources in the >update. 

No, you are
not indicating that. Section 5.3 states the following: "Paremeters that
have not changed SHOULD NOT be included in an update". As a consequence
the RD will not take any action on resources that are not contained in
the payload. 

Regards, 

Alessandro